With lots of challenges and barriers and I think we're doing a lot to learn about those and overcome them.
We're really proud about the people we've been able to house by having them here at wellness two.
>> Coun . Bassan: what is the maximum capacity?
>> it's got about 100 beds.
And a little over 100 rooms there that are occupied.
And we you Awill--usually have about 300 people.
>> Coun . Benton: all right, Councilors.
Thank you, director Pierce.
We have a motion and a second for approval of the contract extension for the wellness two hotel.
All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
We're going to move the agenda to other business.
And this is Ec126 which is the veto by the Mayor of R-22-56 establishing a moratorium of safe out door spaces.
If a Councilor wishes to attempt an override of the veto they will make a motion to override.
If no motion is made or the second is not received the veto stands.
If the motion is made and six votes are not obtained the veto stands.
Is there a motion to E--override?
>> Coun . Lewis: I realize this is completely your discretion.
I make a request that normally this is originally put on the end of the agenda and normally the motion like this would be--and there's some other important things on this agenda I'd like to see.
I know there's people waiting on--if we deal with this first it's going to be a good while.
I think there's a hearing tonight.
So, again I realize it's our discretion I just make a request we move this to the end of the meeting.
>> Coun . Benton: I appreciate the concern, Councilor.
I'd rather dispense with it at this time.
That would be my decision.
>> Coun . Benton: Mr. President, I make a motion to override the Mayor's veto.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion to override the veto.
Second from Councilor Grout.
Again, Councilors, an affirmative vote will be to override the Mayor's veto.
>> Coun . Bassan: I want to say a few things.
>> Coun . Benton: please.
We actually have the ability for public comment and everything.
There's a motion and a second to override.
Just clarifying how it goes.
There are people signed up to speak.
Let's hear from them and we'll hear from Councilors.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
Our first Speaker is Julia, followed by Loretta.
>> Loretta, followed by Tony.
>> good evening, Councilor Benton, Councilors.
I'm the President of Santa Barbara Martinez town neighborhood Association.
I'm not going to go over again what I've explained the conditions of Martinez town are nearly catastrophic.
Regarding the closing of the Coronado Park, we've had to deal with lot of things regarding the homeless.
And it's because of those types of programs which we consider is being moved to the location in our neighborhood and it will not be changed.
I am urging you to please stop this idea that we have such a safe outdoor space.
I think it's deplorable that we as human beings want a decision to put people in tents.
There is something wrong with society where greedy society when we consider that as a solution.
I'm really asking that you override the Mayor's veto and vote against the safe outdoor spaces.
>> Tony followed by Annette.
>> I'm the program director for homeless assistance.
With the new Mexico coalition to end homelessness.
A coalition of over one thousand people dedicated to ending homelessness.
Please do not override the Mayor's moratorium.
There's not enough space to meet the need of homelessness in Albuquerque.
There's a reason why living in a shelter is not an option.
I've been part of two petition campaigns geared toward hearing from the people regarding policy initiatives that impacts them.
Not one person I spoke to was against safe outdoor spaces.
They should be distributed across the city and not allowed to be developed solely in economically poor communities or communities of color.
I visited the West side shelter and learned about the shortcomings from the people living there.
There's no washing machine to wash clothes, the roof leak and there's a back door that doesn't open properly and is a fire hazard.
This also an old prison that has features that Associates with a prison.
There are good reasons why people don't want to live there.
The capacity is about 600.
We have 2,000 people in central intake waiting to be housed and the average length of time to become housed at the onset of homelessness.
Even if you count the shelters, and the Gateway center, you don't have the cu Apacity capacity.
We need safe outdoor spaces.
>> Annete followed by John.
>> thank you, Mr. President, I vote to override the veto.
This has happened about a year ago and another thing that happened a year ago was open borders.
Let's address the elephant in the room and we're in a crisis mode.
We're a border state and sanctuary state.
We have more of crime, we have the number one drug bust just recently.
I don't think creating a tent city or safe spaces is going to be feasible.
Are these people coming over the border?
Yes, they are, because I've talked to them on the streets.
We have women and children pan handling and their has on the other corner and he's--I'm like Why don't you get a job, they could barely speak English because Tlar from other countries.
Let's address it as we should.
And thank you Councilor Sanchez for bringing up that this is a crime issue and it's not a housing.
It's our first amendment right.
And that's what we should be focusing on instead of donating $250,000 to planned Parentred.
Let's see if we can use that money to secure borders and build the wall.
>> John followed by Nani.
>> Coun . Davis: Mr. President, they're not here at the moment.
If we can move NEM to the--move them to the end.
>> thank you, Mr. President, Councilor Davis.
Geraldo followed by Rebecca.
Mr. President, city council members.
Although I'm a retired city employee, I understand.
But being retired, it's hard to enjoy the quality of life when you see all this happening in our culture.
With that said, I am an American Filipino.
First generation residing in Albuquerque since 1980.
Since 1980 homelessness for over 40 years.
From time to time I had great opportunity to serve and feed the homeless in the community.
As your constituent and concern citizen, I encourage to override the Mayor's veto.
Establishing a moratorium for safe outdoor spaces for three simple reasons.
Accord to the Stats at least 70% of homeless for mental illness which promotes criminal acts.
Secondly, imagine having your own business and insurance and facilities would you want homeless camps on your property?
Imagine owning your own home, would you want homeless camps in your property?
I do have empathy and sympathy.
I would hope that you would override the Mayor's veto.
>> Coun . Pe} a: unrelated to the comments that this gentleman made, I ask him from use refrain from using the word retarded.
>> Rebecca followed by Herbert.
>> good evening, president, Councilors.
I am a resident who is concerned about our community as well as the city's fiscal responsibility.
My has and I owned a small business in Albuquerque for over 30 years.
And during those 30 years, we've learned a few things about projects and planning.
Not every project we plan was successful.
However, we did learn that no project was successful unless we planned adequately and executed it adequately.
We were always guaranteed sure Unsuccess when we didn't plan well and/or we didn't execute well.
And execution means following through with those plans and even Tweaking some things that didn't work in the process.
Success only comes from proper planning and from proper execution.
Proper execution is being steadfast and carefully following the thought out plan and also willing, like I said, to Tweak anything that wasn't working to accomplish the success.
Instead of instigating another project, merely for the fact of doing something, how about we commit to following through with the projects that are already Instigated like the wellness hotel, Gateway center, all of those that we can make succeed.
Please override the veto.
>> Herbert, followed by Diane.
>> good evening, Council President, Councilors, how are you doing?
I have to say hello to everybody.
I've been living in Albuquerque since 1960 at ten years old.
I went to Vietnam came back and joined the fire Department and retired from the fire Department.
Before I retired I'm a founder of a program called mission request located at 1314 Gibson.
Started as an old gas station and we got a metal building donated by Intel.
Some may say it was unattractive.
But we served the people.
And we served homeless people.
And we gave a positive quality of life to everyone in the area.
We have a lot of problems in our neighborhood.
We sympathize with the police Department being short of staff.
To get someone out at our already existing problems, gangs, drugs, homelessness from our own people living in the park.
We've been in existence in our neighborhood before we had a Mayor.
The city council always made decision.
I urge your support to veto the Mayor's request.
I hope my buddy Lawrence relates to it to the Mayor we don't want a camp in the area because of the existing problem.
If that exists it makes our problems worse.
I urge your support to veto that request.
>> Diane, followed by Bruce.
And I live in the Kirkland addition.
The reason I'm here is because I heard they're trying to get a homeless camp in our area.
I'm a senior citizen and there's a lot of senior citizens over there and young families over there.
There's lot of--I'm a home care giver and I travel around taking care of elderly people.
What I've learned is that the homelessness, they have no respect for anybody else's property.
I don't think it's fair and I want to say my piece that I want a veto too.
I want it to be vetoed too because of that.
>> Coun . Benton: please no applause.
>> Council President, Council, I had a good speech I was got set forward, after listening to everybody else.
I don't have a big speech.
All I ask is Wheres your compassion.
I hear people talk about the homeless.
We hear about the crisis of homeless and people getting kicked out of their homes because of rent.
And we have this space and this space and some somebody on the West side.
My problem is we want to come up with a solution that's a one size fits all.
We're fighting to say we have to do this and not do this.
Why wasn't do--why can't we do it all.
I want you to veto safe outdoor spaces.
People say things it's going to criminalize it.
Look, we have the same issue among our homeless community that we have in our society.
There's an element of criminals in that just like in our society.
The percentage is the same.
Stop trying to put the homeless in a criminal box.
Because when we do that it makes us look at them differently.
And when you look at them differently you can put them in places where they can be out of sight out of mind.
I don't know what the solution is, but I urge you not to veto this because you don't know if it will work because you have not tried it.
We need to try all things as we talked about.
We talked about the hotels are already full.
By the time it takes fill those up we need everybody to do what they can to make sure it works.
>> Michael followed by Karen on zoom.
>> as taxpayers we have footed the bill for services including the Gateway center, free bus service, medical services to have yet to yield any results.
There are substantial services for people that desire to change their situation.
It's time to realize that people don't want to change unless they're forced to.
This became evident with the closing of Coronado park.
It made people start using services Vaibl and forced them to make tough life decisions.
I think today we need to stand up to the Mayor and homeless and say enough is enough.
Put the onus on the individual and personal choice and it's time they take responsibility for the choices they make.
That's all I have to say.
>> we'll move to speakers on zoom.
First is Karen followed by Reverend Bob.
>> good evening, Councilors.
First I want to advocate for the opening soon an of a safe outdoor parking space with sanitation facilities provided for people living in their vehicles at the Gateway center at one of the parking lots.
This could be restricted to women and elderly individuals who are most Vulnerables as well as families that can't get into the motel.
You passed the zoning change to allow safe outdoor spaces in Non-Residential areas of the city.
Please do not back pedal by imposing a one year mor Tor Atorium moratorium.
Director Holguin know what to do to set up safe outdoor spaces, provide sanitation, provide on-site security.
Limit the number of spaces for tents or vehicles.
Provide secure storage of residents belongings, partner with health care and service providers to come to the site and meet regularly with the people staying there.
That's what providing resources really means.
It can't be done under the status quo.
The support infrastructure already exists just not a safe and stable place for people to be.
I know because I volunteer at the Frances house.
Why wait a year to enact a zoning change you voted for?
Why wait through another cold fall and sometimes bitterly cold winter?
>> Reverend Bob followed by Rosemary.
>> I'm the associate minter of first Unitarian Church of Albuquerque.
It's at the corner of Carlisle Boulevard and Comanche.
I want to talk about two Encampments.
The first sprang up on an empty lot on the other side of the church I serve.
A dozen tents went up and I talked to them a mix of men and women and dogs.
They knew they would get pushed out eventually but they took what little respite they could have there one day at a time.
This is an Unsanctioned encampment.
The there was Vandalization of the church.
Although that happens whether or not there's a camp.
Eventually they were cleared out and who knows where they went.
Probably another encampment.
The second encampment is on our side of the fence on church property.
It's the encampment that I've implied the city to be opened.
If it's approved they will be screened and showers and Bthrooms and people staying there will be safe and have access to measures and be held accountability for their actions.
My question is which kind of encampment do you want in the city?
And the choice no Encampments is not an answer.
We cannot live that making camps illegal will make them go away.
I ask you, give safe outdoor spaces a chance.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you, Reverend.
I have a quick question for you.
Thank you for your question to us.
Is what you're proposing in your church parking lot or property, does it resemble what was going on at Coronado park?
That's what we're hearing.
The city is trying to create another Coronado park elsewhere in the city.
>> I can't tell who is talking?
I can't tell who is asking me the question.
Anyway, it will have nothing to do with Coronado park.
There will be trash pick up.
Also the encampment I'm proposing is folks living in their cars.
It goes from 7 at night to 7 A.M.
We'll have all these services that keep folks from doing the things that make those kinds of Encampments a big problem.
I understand the frustration with that.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you, Reverend.
>> this is the same reminder that I gave the last time.
I believe the facts that were being discussed were related to a pending application for safe outdoor spaces.
It's one of those things that we're not going to be perfect on keeping the record straight.
I urge the Speaker to the extent that you're planning to or have a specific application or site in mind to please address the general policy of the moratorium as opposed to specifics of the particular site in order to preserve all of the due process obligations that the Council will owe in the event of an appeal.
>> Coun . Benton: I have no idea where this church or this encampment is so I think it's a legitimate question but we'll move on.
>> rose Mary followed by Peggy.
>> hello members of the Council.
I reside in district two and I attend Albuquerque friends meeting also in district two.
I'm asking you please do not override the veto of resolution R-22-56.
The weren't way Albuquerque deals with Unhoused community members simply isn't working.
Criminalization of homelessness is not only cruel and violation of widely recognized human rights Standereds it's ineffective expensive and not sustainable.
Work with the city administration on at Lee a few pilot efforts to address the needs of homeless community.
How will we find answers if we tie our own hands?
Albuquerque faces a massive problem of Unhoused and marginally housed community members.
However trying to drive Unhoused persons off the streets and into shelters is not working.
And I believe is making a bad situation worse.
As Mayor Keller stated in his veto message, cities need the flexibility and availability of a wide range of options to be able to match the wide range of situations we find in our unsheltered population.
That is high I'm asking the city to work with the current Ido language to find some real solutions for the crisis of homelessness in the city.
Criminalization of homelessness is required--recognized throughout the world is a violation of basic human rights.
A report of UN committee of elimination of racial discrimination this past month noted.
>> thank you, your time is up.
Peggy, followed by Sarah.
>> good evening, Councilors, again.
I must direct your attention to the fact that this is a Subitantive issue.
The Ido does not have the capacity to amend properly in regard to these issues.
You're making a mess out of our zone code.
I really am on the fence with moratorium.
I can't call for a Yes vote or no vote.
I see the need and I understand the disparity that happens in regard to trying to put people together that don't really belong together in a Tented camp.
If you read Councilor Lewis's statement, he makes a lot of sense.
He makes absolute sense out of the mess that you have created.
Take time, stop the planning, until you have a full master plan in place for dealing with the problem and finding the right solution for our city.
We need voucher systems that work.
We need affordable housing that is expanding not limited.
We need a variety of tools but this one with the oversight, if you went to the West side shelter, I see your tour was delayed.
Probably to pass these issues forward.
If you have seen the West side shelter, you will see that we are not doing justice for these people.
They are living in a dilapidated Hellhole.
>> Sarah, followed by Rene .>> good evening, Councilors.
I'm speaking on behalf of the board of directors of the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce.
We want restate our testimony on how we should fight homelessness.
We believe our city should be Compagsz compassionate and helpful for those people facing homelessness.
Those who want help and will take help should get help.
We have to oppose any policy that allows or encourage our city to be used as a campground.
We don't believe safe outdoor spaces will remain safe or small for long.
We believe the proliferation of homeless camps however constituted will not make our streets safer.
It will hurt effort to attract visitors, residents and employers alike.
I encourage the counsel to do whatever it can.
To offer more overnight shelters, and also Co-Locate and coordinate services.
Medical attention, Detox, I.D.
Recovery, connection to transitional housing, in other words real help that leads to long term stability.
We urge your support for the moratorium.
>> Coun . Benton: I have a question for the last Speaker.
>> Coun . Benton: so, the Chamber of Commerce was a big Organizer of a trip to San Antonio a few years back where we saw their facility.
I don't know if you were part of that.
Really took a leading role in that.
I know the Keller administration's Gateway center was influenced by that trip.
And a lot of people, myself included went along to see what was being done in San Antonio.
Has the Chamber gone to Denver to see the safe outdoor spaces that are being operated there?
>> Coun . Benton: I really encourage you do that before you speak out against them.
Because I don't think you're really getting the picture.
I really disagree with the distortions being put forth about what we're talking about.
Just wanted to make that comment and be sure that I didn't Misspeak by saying you have not gone to see what's being done in Denver with the two outdoor spaces there.
And they were organized by people who used to live on the street and made a presentation to this Council.
>> Rene followed by Linda.
>> good evening, I'm with the West side.
I am providing some comments based on my own observation and being involved in the Ido amendment.
This is an Ido amendment.
It just recently came up this last summer and there's still a lot of questions ability the tent encampment.
A lot of people do not feel supportive of the safe outdoor spaces because there's a lot of questions about them and how they're going to deal with some of the more problematic issues with the drug issues and the mental health.
Therefore, I don't--I think we need to maintain the moratorium right now and not move forward with the safe outdoor space.
I recommend that campus model that you just mentioned, Councilor Benton, called haven for hope in San Antonio.
It does address a lot of different types of homelessness and services and all in one spot.
The Youtube videos I've seen I'm impressed with what I've seen.
I think there's a group in town trying to do a Gabriel Vilening similar to that model.
I think we need to look at that.
But in the meantime, we do have a West side shelter.
And I did go to the West side shelter last week.
And I was impressed with that we have a shelter that has heating and cooler and Dorm rooms.
>> thank you, your time is up.
>> Linda followed by John.
>> yes, let's see if I can--yes, I appreciate being able to speak in front of the Councilors this evening.
I am speaking as a private citizen from district nine.
I'm a retired physician and I'm working as a hospital chaplain.
I have Interacted with many people who are homeless in a variety of capacities.
And I would just like to emphasize first of all that these individuals are fellow human beings.
And they need to be treated with compassion.
I was bothered by the person that said housing is not a right.
And in a country this wealthy we have people that cannot afford to be sheltered and have housing is a shame.
I would like to say also that the road to becoming homeless is multi Multifactorial.
And the road out of homelessness is also Multifactorial.
There are multiple different answers.
And one of them I Strungly encourage is the safe Encampments.
The reason I encourage that is because I believe it's the first step that proceeds the other steps we already have in place in the city.
>> thank you, your time is up.
>> good evening, Councilors.
I'm not going to mention a specific place.
Councilor Bassan, last time you directed staff to talk to us.
We still can't find anyone.
We called, we've employed attorneys, we've tried everything we can.
We've got a 62-Year business that struggled through Thepan and all we're trying to do is get information because everything we're reading is it's going to be 62 years and we're out of here.
The shared parking lot we have with a place the shelter is going to be disappears and it's just--I don't know how this can happen.
There's no due process for us.
This business that's been here a long time.
My personal beliefs are that we--I love the idea of safe spaces.
I remind our Secretary of interior was living in her car homeless.
I think this is a good idea.
I think it's a bad plan at some of the places it's going to be put.
I hate to say this, but I ask that you override the Mayor's veto just to give us time to figure out what's going on.
Please don't close our doors.
>> Coun . Davis: Mr. Rael, if I can asking, I know I asked you to meet with Mr. Hendry.
And help identify some of the concerns of what that property is he's speaking about.
Was your administration able to get them enough information for them to weigh in or participate or understand that process?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Davis, I'm aware that Mr. Barela reached out.
I will follow up immediately after this.
At our break, to make sure we do get with him.
>> Coun . Davis: I know you know each other and it would be helpful to get them what they need.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Bassan.
>> Coun . Bassan: Thank you, Mr.
I know director Barela is here.
That might be a way to Expedeiate the process of communication and infer--information sharing.
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak.
I live here in Albuquerque in the South valley.
Pursuing a career in health science.
We're invested in this community.
Yurbg in film and I spend time feeding film crews.
We film downtown around the different areas where there's homeless people.
I've been able to see a lot of what's going on.
My heart really breaks for them.
They come up and for us to feed them.
I've seen children living in tents.
That really breaks my heart.
I think what you're trying to do with creating safe Spaceicize--spaces is incredible.
And I applaud you for doing something for the awful situation.
I implore you to take time and think about how you're doing this.
I came here the last meeting and I heard testimony about different situations at different areas that you're wanting to put Encampments in.
There just seems to be a lot that needs to be thought out.
I think we need to do more for homeless people and think about the needs they have and make sure that we're providing them with what they need.
I think this is not fully thought out and I think that we need to spend more time making sure they get the things they need and not just put something together really quick.
Because they're really suffering.
I implore that your override the Mayor's veto and spend more time on this.
>> Mr. President, that concludes public comment.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
We're back to the Council.
Councilors, any discussion?
>> Coun . Davis: Mr. President, I'll make this fairly brief.
Director Pierce shared with the city council yesterday a set of guidelines basically an application or rules and regulations that the city was in intended to impose or distributed.
That helped to address some of the concerns that we've heard for six weeks from the communities and neighbors and others that said this seems like an unplanned, rushed consideration that--and I think neighbors are right in the regard we have not shared enough information about how it addresses neighborhood issues.
Director, if you don't mind, I'm going to ask you to do 30 seconds or less.
Some of the things that stood out that I learned from the city guide's lines for operations that I had not heard until yesterday in public.
And I hope we're sharing those with members of the media no matter how tonight goes.
And I want to call a couple out that address concerns tonight.
And I hope you give us a run down of the top lines.
For example, although the city council initially passed these and for some Unforeseeable reason decided not to pass the bill requiring you to create rules you did it anyway.
So they're not chaotic and nobody taking over a new parking lot.
The things I saw that were addressing concerns were a mandatory fence with a cover.
There's some separation for the people indoors.
I saw for example that there were Curfew hours.
Something that looked like dawn to dusk.
I recall 8 at night to 7 A.M.
The city will screen residents.
People can't come and go.
They have to apply for the city and they're screened and matched to a location with the services and whatever types they need instead of just showing up one day.
I also noticed that they have to participate.
They have to--it's exactly what I remember from camp hope.
You have to do work around here to pay rent.
Which is helping to clean up.
To take up jobs and chores to contribute.
You have to participate in weekly meetings with providers and the city.
There were lot of things that I saw in that that have never heard talked about in all this time that address some of the concerns that these won't be for lack of a better term mini Coronado parks all over the city.
They're structured and well done done.
How did you come up with these?
What's the response been from the providers?
And what input was provided by neighbors to address some of the concerns?
>> Council President, Councilor Davis, thank you for that question.
I sent out those guidelines and I applaud the city council when you asked about those early on.
It's the right thing for the Department to do on any new initiative.
We posted those on the Website soon after the Ido amendment.
And these were developed by working with camp hope getting a copy of what they've done.
They had a successful camp for the last ten years and also Speaker from the Colorado collaborative that came to speak to many of you early spring.
We developed this based on that.
And yes, this does address many of the concerns that it is not a walk-up facility.
People have to sign an agreement.
It is not just come and go.
There are rules that are associated with this.
So you know who is in there and you need a roster for safety reasons.
I'll go ahead and add that also 100% of people who are in a safe outdoor space must be engaged with a case manager.
As we move forward and reset we'll have benchmarks of who receives services.
What percent of people need help re relocating for reasons of family or to avoid persecution.
We'll also track the concern that we have heard from neighbors.
What will happen if there's chaos.
We're going to track how many APD calls are associated with this.
That's something Colorado did.
They had minimal to none APD calls.
We have set benchmarks hearing the concerns from neighbors and the conversations they've had.
>> Coun . Davis: my last question for the director.
One of the things I'm sure Councilor Sanchez can speak for himself, one of the things he's been Adimate, I've heard from Councilor Sanchez and others, what do we do with people with warrants?
How do we not create a criminal safe space, for lack of a better term?
I saw it's explicit and they have to sign the agreement that they understand persons with open warrants will be turned over to APD.
They cannot participate in crimes or have weapons they cannot consume alcohol or drugs on-site.
They can't trade alcohol or drugs for things.
I feel like some of these rules as long as the city is enforcing them, and I like the city is setting up a designated time to meet with everybody and visit.
It seems we've addressed some of the security concerns.
Particularly for neighborhoods that haven't worked with these before.
I applaud the administration.
I don't think this is exactly the right answer.
I think somewhere between the unstructured status of Coronado and what we heard from partners and friends in Denver was the Overstructure of those.
I think you struck a balance and I like the idea that the administration can do this through rule making and in practice so we can modify this on a site by site basis and weekly basis to work on that.
I feel better that the people in my community who are neighbors to these or are going to be seeing these have had some of the concerns addressed.
And I don't believe we've done a good enough job of how we're going to do his.
I think we can do a good job communicating that going forward.
For that reason, I'll vote no.
So we can maintain the safe outdoor spaces.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Lewis.
>> Coun . Lewis: Thank you, Mr.
We've had such a long discussion about this.
I've listed a lot of research and had lot of discussion of why I think there's a better way than these so-called safe outdoor spaces.
I want to mention Denver because I've done research on Denver and what they're doing.
There's 370 people that live in tent Encampments in the city of Denver.
The city of Denver spends 6 $6 million for that program.
It's about $33,000 per year per tent which means that Denver could take that money, and they could actually buy two bedroom apartments in the city of Denver and put two people up per apartment for the amount of money for a year for what they spend per year on the 370 tents they spend on.
With the amount of money they spend on safe outdoor spaces per person they can put two people in an apartment with running water and beds.
There's more homelessness in Denver than ever before.
Safe outdoor spaces in Denver is not compassionate.
They could spend the same amount of money and really be able to help people.
I think that's where we're headed.
If we're going to do this, I want to mention that the West side coalition of neighborhood associations that represent all the neighborhoods in my district are against safe outdoor spaces.
And I'm also encouraged by the Gateway.
And the Mayor announcing about a thousand people to be able to serve there.
I think those are--taxpayers agree those are better ways to be able to really help people.
Among many, many other things I wanted to point out those that relevant to this topic tonight.
>> Coun . Benton: I'd like to respond, Councilor Lewis.
By asking our friends from family and community services to come up.
We were together on that trip I mentioned in September.
There were folks from the county also on that trip.
There were 12 of us there.
It didn't seem to compute from what I heard from Councilor Lewis.
>> thank you, Councilor Benton.
I will say thank you, Councilor Lewis.
We're very excited about Gateway and what's right around the corner.
What we're really looking for safe outdoor spaces is budget of $125,000 to $150,000 per 40 to 50 people.
That's consistent with what camp hope does.
I'm not sure where the 6 $6 million is coming from.
I think the cost per person is a really good figure to look at.
We think this budget is far less than that.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
>> Coun . Lewis: Mr. President.
That 6 $6 million is in the Denver post, February 7, 2022.
Additional 3.9 $3.9 million they were spending about over 6 $6 million.
In the Denver post, just Pakly Ly Ly--reporting on the city council meeting and the budget.
The article States 370 tents.
A downtown apartment in the city of Denver, maybe $1500 a month.
That's going to provide for a two bedroom apartment for an entire year.
We're talking lot about Denver, we're touting how great it is, there's more homelessness in Denver than ever before since they had this safe outdoor spaces.
That is a fact the amount of money they're spending per person.
If we're going to spend less it's probably not going to be as successful as what you think Denver is.
>> Coun . Benton: the amount appropriated, correct?
That was action of the Denver city council?
It doesn't say anything about what we're describing.
>> Coun . Lewis: we can ignore the fact.
>> Coun . Benton: I'm reading the headline and looking over the shoulder.
Says that was the recent action that the city council in Denver.
>> Coun . Lewis: they put it in the budget back in February an additional 3.9 $3.9 million.
>> Coun . Benton: director.
>> I'm happy to follow up with the Denver partners to get a little bit more on the budget.
I will say camp hope that we're following as equally, they are part of the state.
They've been in operation for ten years.
Every safe outdoor space I've visited is up passion--compassionate.
But the budget for Las Cruces is less and I can provide that.
We can do a good job with the budget we anticipate for this project.
>> thank you, Councilor Benton, Councilor Lewis, I like to offer a point of clarification.
We do have the budget from Colorado collaborative.
It is significantly less than what you stated.
I think the Council may have appropriated that amount of money because sometimes their Ido process they have to move camps every six months and they lay full electricity in these camps which costs about $50,000 each time.
That may be where some of the budget is allocated to.
That is not the system we'll be using.
>> Coun . Benton: thanks.
>> Coun . Sanchez: I have a question.
I'm under the impression that every single one of our programs currently has rules including tiny houses.
How do you propose to enforce these rules that haven't been enforced in any other programs we have?
>> Councilor Benton, Councilor Sanchez, the rules where we have shelters and rules we follow I can't speak to tiny home village it's County project.
When we have projects with rules rules are followed and when they're broken we address it.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Fiebelkorn.
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
I'm going to do quick research on how much it costs to live in Denver downtown Denver.
I really don't think it matters.
We have folks in our community who are experiencing homelessness for a variety of reasons.
And many of them are not ready to go into a shelter or long-term house.
Some of them might live with companion animals and they can't find place to go.
If you're leaving a domestic violence situation you might not feel comfortable going into a shelter.
If you've been trafficked you might not feel comfortable going into a large shelter.
Veterans with Ptsd might not feel comfortable going into a shelter.
You might just have a job and you might not want to go to the middle of nowhere to sleep at night.
I think we owe it to these folks to give them something that can help them.
Another reason you might not want to go into a shelter is maybe you're a young person and jure--you're scared.
Last city council meeting we heard from Erin, she was an amazing woman who was brave enough to tell the story of being homeless and living out of her car.
And she inspired me, so I'm going to tell you my Sor Tory.
As a teenager I was homeless.
And it was really, really hard.
You get up in the morning before anybody else because you don't want anyone to see you sleeping in your car.
Thankfully I could go into school and steal a shower.
After school, you go to your work.
And then you volunteer to do every job add that work so you can stay as long as possible.
So you can use the bathroom.
Before you go out into the world that night.
And then you go and walk up and down the Aisles of a grocery store or a target to waste time.
Because you don't know where else to go because you're scared.
And then you go and think, all right, where am I going to park tonight.
I was lucky and I had a car.
Where are you going to sleep, where are you going to park.
Where are you going to feel safe?
And what's close to a path bathroom.
Because in the middle of the night when you wake up you're going to need to find one.
You go, lock all your doors are, you cover yourself with the blanket.
And next morning that starts all over again.
I would not be here today as an Albuquerque city Councillor if someone had not helped me.
I really want the city of Albuquerque to help people in our community right now who are experiencing this exact same thing.
I of course will be voting to uphold the Mayor's veto and give these folks a place to go that is safe and secure and where they can potentially move on to a shelter or long-term housing when they're ready.
>> Coun . Benton: any other discussion?
>> Coun . Bassan: if there's no further discussion, Mr.
>> Coun . Benton: proceed.
>> Coun . Bassan: to begin with, I've been holding back some of the comments from all of the earlier conversations.
And now adding this one to the list.
Thank you for your courage to be able to share that.
It's important to recognize that.
Tonight, just tonight alone, we've heard how this is a national problem.
We've heard that housing, rent control, homelessness, crime, behavioral health, drug addiction, are national problems.
We've heard that people feel helpless.
We've heard we're in a Hew Happenitarian crisis.
We've heard we deploy all resources available but that is not enough.
We've heard there's nothing we can do.
So what I'm hearing is that we need help.
We need help in Albuquerque.
We don't want visitors to see the filth on central.
What about everybody that lives here everyday?
We have distortions of what's being talked about here.
I don't think there's distortions so much as we're not listening.
We also heard that we have a plan for safe outdoor spaces now.
Why do we need a plan just for Sach outdoor spaces?
Let's implement that plan at any possible Avenue we.
The sanctioned encampment started as a good idea to me.
The designated for someone to camp legally rather than sprinkled throughout the city.
The city has a moral obligation to do something to help with substance abuse and behavioral health needs.
We do need to create more affordable housing units.
We've funded them in my opinion.
We've funded frankly funded the crap out of them.
But we need to get more of them.
I think all of us agreed to that.
We need Detox, we need respite.
We're working on that we're getting really close.
We need dual Diagnoses treatment.
So people people can get help with all of the above.
We also need to listen to both sides.
Everyone in Albuquerque, especially Ofilate, is asking Wheres our safe outdoor space?
Or cord--Coronado park closed and I commend the administration.
The Mayor quoted in the Journal that Coronado park was the most dangerous place in the state of New Mexico.
I commend that we closed that, if that is how we feel about it.
Before that, they worked hard to flood Coronado park to give services and provide assistance to those who wanted it.
Now we're still playing whack a mole.
We don't have a better solution.
I agree, I I know that I don't have all the answers.
But I want move to the downtown business, and I promise these are relevant to safe outdoor spaces and they're juror main to these.
We have a fund that our tax paying business owners can put money into so we can make sure that they can afford chief's overtime for an already depleted and struggling and really hardworking police Department.
Where does the equity come in that?
We're paying into the tax Fund.
Everybody that does, and now we're saying okay for those of you that can afford more, go ahead and give us more money and we'll make sure you're Prooiz Priortized.
Another quote is downtown had to take this into their own hands.
That's not how police and government and serving and protecting works.
Coronado Mall got rid of the APD Substation and brought in Bcso.
In just a couple weeks the manager of the Mall and sheriff said they reduced crime and had over 100 arrests.
They reduced crime their in their properties by 90%.
I don't know, I didn't see it all happen.
I'm not saying I know all those Stats and I took them myself.
These are things we have to listen to.
Councilor Pe} a, you say all the time and I think it's so true and I agree with you, poverty is not a crime.
It is not a crime to be homeless.
I'm not saying we need to criminalize homelessness.
And we don't need to criminalize the poor.
But we also cannot continue to Legitimize illegal Behaviorseeths behaviors either.
In the last week alone, in our Emails, and they're addressed to every single Councilor.
We heard from the old town winery, crime Stoppers put out the family dollar was threatened with a needle to be robbed.
Yeller Subasked people to leave and they had been giving help help and been trying and when they said it's time to move on we need to have this table for patrons they got attacked.
People are sending us Emails saying they're Self-Policing and begging us for help.
Test strips are being given by the new Mexico Department of health.
I believe it's a great idea to protect people from Overdosing and dying on our streets.
However, that same article quoted that the Department of health said they're giving these test trips to drug dealers.
If we know where drug Keelers--dealers are at.
Why are we not doing something about them instead of making sure what they're selling is pure.
These harm reduction strategies are not what people are asking for.
I'm getting close to the end, I promise.
I had a conversation with somebody I respect very greatly and I'm getting to know more.
That person asked me that maybe in order to support safe outdoor spaces and get my district to get behind it I should ask them what is it you would take to become more comfortable to allow these.
I told that person, I feel like I heard what it would take from much constituents.
I think it would take them feeling safe.
People don't feel safe here.
The administration, APD, city Council, actual business owners, home ENS, residents.
Everyone works hard and we don't feel safe.
We want to be able to go to all of the places and feel okay.
Instead of taking the law into our own hands.
So, taking homelessness out of the equation, Albuquerque is become what I have now decided my own term, I don't know if anybody else came up with it, if you have, I promise I'll give you credit.
I believe Albuquerque is becoming a sanctuary for criminals.
I do not think it can continue.
People do not feel safe and they're pleading with us to help.
They're pleading with us to help help Homeilous less homeless.
I believe we're trying our best, but what we're not doing is recognizing even if every tool in the Toolbox is what we have, maybe there's only a right tool for the job.
Instead of every tool and all of the above, with we real to recognize we don't have an improvement and rather than us continuing I say I'll try to offer solutions.
Let's use some of those positions that we have at APD that we funded we're not going to fill.
We any we're not going to have all of the officers before the end of the fiscal year.
Let's get more PSA, let's get more public service AIDS.
Crime scene specialists so when people call for help we go and take a report instead of saying call 242-Cops and never answer.
Let's ask for help, Albuquerque.
Administration, Council, let's ask for help.
I think the Mayor is on to something with that.
Let's work with judges and defenders.
Let's work with everybody.
Let's work with all of these people.
So, last thing is, since we don't have any improvement that's noticeable.
We're all sitting here, everybody has been saying the same thing.
My reasoning when I say that what is it going to take, why do people want to feel safe, why aren't they for safe outdoor spaces, I think people because they feel so unsafe they actually are losing patience and losing their compassion.
Which the opposite of what everyone here tonight has been talking about.
We're lose compassion as a society.
That's not what we want to do.
We have to feel safe in order to get there.
Instead of adding salt to the wounds and not seeing improvement and ignoring the public, let's listen to them.
And vote to override the Mayor's veto.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion and a second for the override and again, six votes are needed to override the Mayor's veto.
A Yes vote will be to Overvide a vote no will be to uphold the Mayor's veto.
All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
We do have a--I know we're almost an hour over due for dinner break.
I think this will go quickly.
>> Coun . Bassan: Mr. President, O-29 is authorizing the issuance and sale of the city of Albuquerque industrial revenue bonds in the Max misdemeanor to provide funds to finance the renovation and development and improvement and equipping of a facility for renewable energy storage company authorizing the execution and delivery of an indenture lease agreement bond purchase agreement and other documents in connection with the issuance of the bond and the project.
>> Coun . Benton: please conduct your discussion outside the chamber.
There's a motion and second.
Let's hear from our economic development Department.
>> good evening, Councilor Benton, Councilors, thank you.
The opportunity to present this project today, as we heard the energy solutions is requesting an industrial revenue bond in the amount of 95 $95 million.
The company is a utility scale energy storage developer of low-cost battery energy storage.
It improves the electric grid Reliability and helps integrate clean sources of energy.
If we've seen what happened in California over the last day or two it's incredibly timely that we have a company that is wanting to build something that will store energy for when we need it.
The project known as Sandia peak grid is a stand alone storage system.
Approximately 60 to 100 unique jobs will be created during the construction and commissioning of the project.
The company expects the majority of the labor force to be from the local area.
Permanent new jobs for Sandia peak grid will result in high wage full-time positions.
This project represents a major capital investment that improves our energy infrastructure.
I'll pass it to Chris to present the staff unless and additional information on the project.
>> thank you, deputy director.
Council President, Council, this project is a stand alone energy storage system.
The primary Dpoel goal is to bolster energy and infrastructure.
As such, this project shouldn't be considered traditional Job-Creating Irb but an energy infrastructure project.
The parent company of Sandia peak grid owns and operates a growing portfolio of storage project and invests in the most experienced renewable development teams in the United States.
For nearly 20 years they have directly funded the development of more than 20,000 Megawatts of Storj, Sdaegs storage this project is going to be on 6.1 acre site.
That was most recently used as an Rv storage facility.
An energy storage system is an allowable use.
As deputy director said, this doesn't create a lot of permanent jobs.
But the jobs that it does create are High-Pay (Ing and see a significant benefit from the overall economic impact.
The renewable improvement to the infrastructure and the sizable investment.
In addition to having had a new partner in the local industry.
It includes a fiscal impact analysis prepared by the Unm--and the analysis shows this will have a positive economic impact of 7.6 $7.6 million after 20 years.
The tax abatement will be 60%.
This is a qualified project by the state's industrial revenue act.
The project complies with adopted city plans and policies.
Based on the above findings, the staff recommends approval of Irb Irb22-3 as proposed in the project plan and we wanted to note it passed the Albuquerque planning Department Analysisly.
Thank you and we stand for questions.
>> Coun . Bassan: I want to make sure we go ahead and give everyone else a chance to speak.
We have another gentleman here.
And we also have someone on zoom to speak as well.
>> thank you, good evening, Council members.
I'm Eric, I'm the chief development officer at the parent company.
I'm also here with my colleague who is our project manager.
We have 63 storage projects in construction or in development across the U.S. including the Albuquerque area.
I wanted to thank the city Council, the city staff, and economic development office for their analysis and consideration of this Incosteral revenue bond.
The Sandia peak grid project stated it's a planned battery energy storage facility.
It can connect to 100 Megawatts to Pnm Substation and start construction as soon as late next year and operate just before the summer of 2024.
The project benefits include providing Pnm with capacity resource to maintain reliable electric service to the homes and businesses of Albuquerque.
Second, reducing local and state wide emissions.
And storing renewable energy.
And third, providing a significant clean energy infrastructure investment in Uren communities and in contrast to most large scale renewable Projecterize required to be located in rural areas.
It is a unique opportunity for investment.
The Irb is critical to make sure we can make the investment in the city with this project.
And reduce the cost for everyone including Pnm rate payers who already pay high bills.
We thank you for this consideration of the Irb.
I'm available for any questions you have.
>> Coun . Benton: any questions, Councilors?
Mr. best, did you like to speak?
>> yes-->> Mr. best is on zoom, and this is Ian beard available for questions.
>> Coun . Benton: any other questions?
We appreciate everyone's patience.
>> Coun . Bassan: I would like to move Floorplan substitute.
I imagine it's probably because there's pennies being changed with the last minute stuff and it's more technical.
I would like to defer the bond counsel so you feel like it's not just taking my word for it.
>> Mr. President, members of the Council.
The substitute really only makes two changes to the ordinance.
Previously before the Council, the first is the name of the project was changed to Sandia peak grid from--I'm not sure what the previous was.
The only other change is that in section nine of the bond ordinance there's was a blank schedule that schedule has now been completed.
Those are the only two changes to the ordinance that the Council has previously viewed.
>> Coun . Benton: I'll second the motion for the floor sub.
Thank you for the presentation.
Councilor Bassan to close.
>> Coun . Bassan: I urge your support.
>> Coun . Benton: on the floor Suball those in favor say yes.
That passes, we're back on the bill as substituted.
Councilor Bassan to close.
>> Coun . Bassan: I still urge your support.
>> Coun . Benton: all those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
This is adopting a zoning map amendment for approximately 0.67 acre site located at 10035 country cane between golf course and Paradise hills golf course.
And we're going to facilitate a redevelopment.
It's Quasi-Judicial request which requires special procedures to allow the applicant, staff and public the opportunity to speak.
All persons speaking to this matter must be sworn in.
If you will be speaking to this item please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true.
Our time Lement limits, introduction by Council staff five minutes, presentation by the applicant ten minutes, presentation by the Protester, ten minutes.
Public comment two minutes each.
Cross examination by the applicant five minutes.
Cross examination by the Protester five minutes.
And rebuttal and closing by the applicant five minutes.
We will now go to that list of Presenters starting with MS.
Thank you for reading the title.
This item is a zone map amendment.
For a subject parcel--let me get my screen sharing.
The subject appropriate is--property is highlighted in yellow.
The zoning for the subject property today is Nr-C which is nonresidential commercial.
And the requested zone district is residential multifamily low density.
To the South and West and North of the subject site is a golf course zoned nonresidential commercial.
And to the East is land that is within the unincorporated parts of Bernalillo County and does not have city zoning.
The purpose of the nonresidential commercial zoning district, the zoning applied on the property today is accommodate medium scale retail, office and institutional uses.
The requested zone generally to residential multifamily low density is to provide low to medium density mouse housing.
One of the types is Townhousing and small scale multifamily development and institutional.
The city council is hearing this under a special provision in the Ido we take required STAT statute that says if there's a zone map amendment before the environmental planning Commission where that body would be the final decision maker if there are 20% of property owners around the subject site a minimum of 20%, they can file a protest test protest.
That kicks the final decision authority up to city council.
Under regular circumstances this decision would not be before this body today.
It would have been decided by the environmental planning Commission.
But the protesters who you will hear has evoked the 20% protest rule that has brought it up to you today.
That turns the Epc decision into recommend recommendation.
They conducted two hearings on the matter.
Instead of a final recommendation, they recommended to the city council.
The first hearing was in February.
The Commission took testimony from both the applicant, Protester and city staff on the facts of the request.
They deferred for one month, came back and heard the request again, heard again from the applicant and from the Protester and from the staff assigned to the case and ultimately did end up recommending approval.
The-->> Coun . Sanchez: I wanted to know if they did or didn't recommend.
>> the planning Commission did recommend approval of the zone map amendment to the city council.
The requirements for>> one person in Opization who is the Protester you will hear from tonight.
There will be a series of presentations after mine.
And after that the Council will have two options to deal with this bill this evening.
I suppose is you can defer, if you wanted to dispose of the bill you can support the zone map amendment request which would be moving approval of the bill.
There are findings in the bill that support that request.
The other option, if you were to reject the zone map amendment request would be to move denial pursuant to alternate findings.
And those Arality Lternate findings would support why it should be Deneed.
With that, I stand for questions.
We have the applicant and Protester who will provide information about the request in much more detail than I did.
I'm happy to stand for questions after their presentations if desired.
>> Coun . Lewis: Mr. President, you explained all the uses of the possible zoning if the zoning were to change.
It was mentioned assisted living, but as you said, they had to list several options or at least one option.
This is residential use but there's a number of residential type uses to this.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Lewis, yes, I'd be happy to do that.
My integrated development ordinance is loading.
Give me about ten seconds and I can Ulup--pull up that table.
The permissive uses in the Rml zone district are going to be a little bit of a lengthy list.
A single family detached dwelling, a cluster development dwell dwelling, cottage development, two-family detached dwelling, Townhouse, multifamily dwelling, assisted living facility or nursing home, community residential facility, small community residential facility large, Councilor Lewis, I heard you ask about the residential categories.
That's all the uses in the residential category.
>> Coun . Lewis: Thank you.
Even though what was mentioned was assisted living, what's allowable would be single family residential Detafrped Ched.
I wanted to make sure that was clear.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, multifamily was also permissive use.
>> Coun . Benton: any questions?
If not, we'll move to the presentation by the applicant.
Good evening, Mr. President, members of the city council.
I'm Jackie Fishman, I'm with planning.
I'm here on behalf of the applicant in the zone change request.
This is our fourth hearing on this--what I consider a straight forward zone map amendment.
The applicant request a down zone from NRC to Rml for a Three-Quarter acre site on country club Lane.
As you heard, they would like to Redevelop in the property and the existing building as assisted living.
Adjacent zoning, city zoning includes NRC Rml and R 1 de.
That's why I recommended Rml because there's other Adaceant to the golf course.
It's adjacent to the Paradise hills and that's multifamily development and single family.
History shows it was part of a larger area Annexed and zoned in 1978.
It was zoned for golf course, 72 Houn--Townhouse.
And the Epc in their findings found that the zone change Furthers numerous goals and policies contained in the comprehensive plan.
I won't go through the list it takes too long.
The Epc also found that the zone change was more advantageous to the community than existing NRC zone by promoting infill, redevelopment of a small vacant building and re-establishing the residential use allowed by the previous zoning and increasing housing choices for Seeners in an area containing city services also in Poxm M proximity to Rml zones.
It makes good planning sense in proximity to other Rml Preefbt previously zoned as Mr2.
Next slide, I'll keep talking.
It shows existing zoning on top and existing land use on the bottom.
The Rml as I keep mentioning is to the northeast that's the Orange color on the top graphic.
And the next slide is an AR Erial view.
It's dominated by low density residential development.
It contains Rml property.
It shows several photos, the top two photos are of the building itself.
The top left is the front of the building it shows where the parking is located.
The top right is the interior courtyard, it's Lushly landscaped.
And the two bottom photos show some site contents.
Next slide shows zoning comparison between NRC and Rml.
The zone change would eliminate many uses allowed in the NRC zone that would be considered Impactful to neighborhoods.
Those include things like car wash, gas station, liquor retail, Cannabis, nicotine, Mortuary, contractor yard, Self- Self-Storage.
There's not very neighborhood friendly uses in the NRC zone.
We usually don't like to see NRC in the middle of residential neighborhood.
The Epc agreed removing the uses would allow residential use and establish neighborhood is more advantageous than an NRC zone.
We believe that the NRC zone is not appropriate for the parcel.
Due to the small size, it's existing two-story build (the location location.
It really believe that allowing seniors to live in residential neighborhoods instead of institutional settings is good for the community and senior's emotional health and good planning practices.
We submitted a petition to adjacent neighbors that support the zone change.
We also created a map to show you where those supporters live.
My next slide shows some site distances it's a little bit hard to see.
The club House bar at the golf course is about 28 feet from the nearest single family residential lot to the West.
However, it's about 97 feet from our building to the East.
So, this was a Turningpoint in the Epc hearing.
And and measured in real time during the hearing, once we did that, I think it changed a lot of opinions on the Epc.
This is a residential neighborhood, it's appropriate to have residential uses.
I showed this at Lups, this is the 1992 site plan amendment.
I wanted to note on this site plan amendment it does label the subject property as existing.
This is a use allowed on this site until the Ido was adopted in 2018.
To conclude, the applicant purchase this with the fuel knowledge of the uses and events of the golf cars and they want to be a good neighbor.
We worked on this since last October.
They believe the property is a good fit for the Assistive living facility and would allow the residents to enjoy being next to the golf course.
The applicants fully understand the activities that are held at the golf course as the residents when they sign a lease.
These aren't people buying a room in the building, they're leasing it.
The Protester is concerned that the use would somehow cause regulatory damage to his business.
We think those fears are overstated.
And also by the way I note that the Rml is not a protected lot in the Ido.
A lot of those restrictions to commercial next to residential wouldn't apply because of the two zoning categories.
Our applicants and one of them is here tonight, they have been willing to make improvements to the build (Ing and property that includes landscaping and higher graded windows to address the concern of the golf course owner that his uses will disturb the residents.
They're willing to do whatever they need to do to get this done.
We had Dr.Dimena at the Lups hearing a few weeks ago.
And we also, a group of us, talked to him yesterday to clear Fay some of the things he said at Lups because the recording was difficult to hear.
I think you'll hear from him.
Very briefly, he testified and repeated yesterday that noise must be persistent and continuous to be a nuisance.
A lot of the fear we heard through all the Epc hearings about the golf carts being gas powered and how loud they were, doctor Dimena said they would be exempt from the noise ordinance pause they're not persistent and continuous.
I think that Dispenses with that concern.
He also confirmed violations of noise ordinance require a complainant that must be Substantiated action is rarely Takeman and when action is taken it's a civil violation.
The attorney for the Protester has testified in other hearing she thought it was a criminal offense.
Dr. din MENA said it's civil offense.
It almost never gets to a court.
And he can explain that if he's still here.
And in the case of assisted facility the complaints would go through the management company.
So he also said it wouldn't be individual people that are calling from their bedroom saying I have a noise issue here.
They would have to go through the management company and the applicant are the management of the facility.
I think those fears are really overstated.
With that, Mr. President, and Council Council, I work your support for the zone change.
We think it helps strengthen the residential character of this neighborhood and allows for a different type of housing that would accommodate senior and permanently remove the Impactful uses from the NRC zone.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
Is it appropriate for Councilors to ask questions at this time?
>> Mr. President, did you say question of the-->> Coun . Benton: I'm asking if questions have any questions for Ms. Fishman.
>> the opposing party will have an opportunity.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Thank you.
You mentioned that one of the reasons recommendation for clients was that--for this change is that the other residents you feel like it would be more ideal for them to have a residential development in that area?
But for the residents that are going to live there, they don't have a residential surrounding there.
The primary business that surrounds this facility is a commercial golf course.
I just find it interesting that the recommendation to change this to a residential building so that because it's ideal I guess for neighborhoods to have residential surroundings rather than commercial, I think I found that interesting.
I don't think that's ideal for this.
Partly because this is a--this golf course is an incredible treasure to that entire area.
I would say hundreds, several thousand homes and families are dependent upon that golf course thriving.
So, I understand the sense of a threat if it was in any way threatened to not be able to operate like it is at this time.
And Thankfully that golf course is thriving right now pause because it hasn't for a long time.
There was a time we thought we lost it.
We lost a lot of residential homes in that area.
And the understanding is that the homes you mentioned that are even closer to the food area and the entertainment area, they sit out in their backyard and enjoy it.
There's been no complaints at all because they appreciate the fact that golf course is thriving and doing really well.
Now we're asking people to move in right in the middle of another commercial area and deal with not just intermittent noise, there's Boxing matches right outside the windows of that facility.
There's concerts and music all evening which is a part of what made that golf course thrive.
That's a part of it, I'd like to you to address that.
Is that a concern of your client that you're changing a zone to put residential area that are right in the heart of some pretty significant commercial--where there's noise it's natural part of the success.
Number two, you mentioned when these zones were changed, part of the reason when these zones were changed in the 50s was that the West side for many, many years has been a lot of residential areas.
A lot of communities that have been built up and the jobs and the commercial services are on the East side.
What we're doing here would be Eeliminating a commercial space, or commercial zoning for the sake of a residential area where everyone has agreed and our planning documents demonstrate that the goal of these areas should be able to provide services and increase the commercial areas of these areas here and not just keep building residential housing where we just stack up more people.
When your client--this is that is a concern of the client that really in those two ways you can see and you can understand why this would seem to be something that would be detrimental to the neighbors including the main neighbor which is the golf course?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Lewis, I'll try to respond to some of those statements.
In 1978--1987 when this area was Annexed the zoning did allow residential on this property.
Not only this property, but golf course and many areas around it.
It only became unable to be developed for residential in 2018 when the Ido was adopted.
This is a Three-Quarter acre site.
You can't get much housing out of this.
It's got an existing building.
We don't have enough facilities for seniors.
I realize it's only one use for Rml zones.
For all Intents and purposes to Redevelop this site, Three-Quarter Saker with existing building for commercial use.
I don't know what they would do.
But what's the difference between somebody staying in a hotel and noise happening around the hotel versus assisted living.
They're renting the space, they don't own the property.
The golf course, I look at it, golf course is an island in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
We keep talking about my client's parcel being an island surrounded by the golf course.
I think if you take a step back and look at it the golf course is surrounded by residential.
And we're just trying to re-establish that residential use where it was allowed before the Ido was adopted.
I don't think this takes away from the golf course.
When somebody assigns their parents to live in assisted living facility, there's disclosure.
People will go there and know that they're next to a golf course.
And my client has had events at the golf course and be completely aware of what's going on there.
I think this makes sense.
Planning staff agreed, Epc agreed.
It's more straightforward than it appears.
>> Coun . Grout: I have a quick question.
How many units are intending to put here?
>> we're thinking it would accommodate around 20 seniors.
>> Coun . Grout: do you think it will impact the traffic at all?
>> no, because, Mr. President, Councilor Grout, the residents of assisted living facility typically don't drive.
The people that work there will drive.
Their visitors will be there.
They're going to have Shuttles and transportation.
We've heard from the Protester and the Epc hearing that they may wander out on to the golf course and hurt themselves.
I don't think that's a realistic portrayal of what happens at assisted living.
>> Coun . Grout: Thank you.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Thank you.
Part of which Councilor Grout did ask.
>> Coun . Sanchez: and how much are the leases?
>> Councilor, I'm not sure we know that answer yet.
I can have the applicant come and speak.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Okay, another question is you said you were going to do somewhat of a re Remodel what you mentioned didn't seem like much OA--of re Remodel.
I'm concerned the value of the area, my sister lives close in this area.
And I know that right now in Paradise hills there's a resurgence.
A lot of people are remodeling houses and hope they continue to gain value on their houses being right next to the golf course.
And 20 people with a very, very small Remodel is not really looking too good for me.
Another question that Councilor Grout touched on was how did the workers enter and exit the facility and are they going to be driving off of a main road or are they going to be driving through the neighborhoods?
I know you're talking about workers how do they get in and out of the facility and how are families going to get in and out of the facility?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, the people will get to the site from--it's West of golf course road.
It's off country club Lane.
There's parking right in front of the facility.
That's how they would get there.
>> Coun . Sanchez: can you show me a picture.
Are they driving through the facility where the actual golf courts are moving?
Or are they coming through the alley way which goes right through the residential House something Ing?
>> if somebody can bring up my slides again.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, this road labelled country club Lane leads right up to the subject parcel.
This Red-Roofed building is the existing building on the applicant's property.
>> Coun . Sanchez: I can't really see what's past the picture you have.
I'm trying to get the idea of what's there.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, once it loads, golf course road is the main road off to the East.
The aerial hasn't loaded.
And folks come through country club Lane up to the subject site which I'm circling with my Surser here.
>> Coun . Sanchez: it's a different access point than the actual golf course?
>> no, Councilor Sanchez, it's the same road that people would take to this facility and the golf course.
There's only one road in.
>> Coun . Sanchez: that's what I thought.
That the building that used to be the small hotel?
>> Yeah, there's a sign on the building that said it was a B & B.
And some people have called it a B & B and some called it a hotel.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Okay, I'm familiar with the building.
>> in terms of Remodel, I'll say a couple words and the applicant would like to speak.
They are planning to do a complete Remodel of the inside of the building.
It is not suitable yet for the purpose of the project.
They are putting a lot of their hard-earned money to fix up the building.
The site is completely fenced, as I showed in one of the photos.
There's a rear yard that is walled off.
It has a nice pond and landscaping.
It's very self-contained.
>> Coun . Sanchez: it actually does feel like you're on the golf course when you're at that facility.
You drive-in as soon as you drive to the left there's several parking Ing Ing spots and they're used by the golf course all the time when they have a big event.
I understand where it's at exactly and if anybody's been to the golf course it's that small building that used to be a small air B & B.
I don't know if that building is big enough to house these people.
It seems small, knowing the facility.
>> thank you, I just want to address Councilor Sanchez's question about the renovation.
We are actually planning a pretty extensive renovation of $800,000 for that facility.
In the past it has been run as an air B & B.
And it has owners unit, kitchen facilities, it's been vacant for the last three years.
So as it stands currently there's really no value added to the community.
And the reason why people can use that for parking currently is because it's vacant.
Our renovation, I think Jackie was trying to address specifically to help with the noise complaint.
It's an extensive renovation, we're doing Ada and we're in closing with an old school motel set up.
So the halls are exterior.
We're enclosing all of that.
That adds an entirely other dimension of noise protection and security for the residents as well.
>> Coun . Benton: any other questions, Councilors?
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
I have two quick questions.
If we don't change the zoning for this property, it can be used as a hotel, motel?
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: okay.
The change would allow us to house 20 people who need assisted living?
>> Coun . Benton: Let's move on.
Is there any other questions at this time.
Let's hear from the Protester.
>> I'm John Bailly, I'm the owner of the Paradise hills golf course.
First, to clarify the question about the parking issue and access into the facility.
As you come off golf course road, you can turn on to country club.
We own country club Lane.
Which we'd love to the city if they like to have it.
But you come up and when you get to those parking spots you're talking about, to get to those parking spots you actually have to drive through our parking lot and use our drive way to get to those parking spots.
Any time they're unloading, delivery Troch RY Y trucks they have to come through our property to get to those parking spots.
We have serious concerns relating to the noise, safety, future construction and shared land issues.
I guess tonight just with limited time we're going to hit on the noise issue.
We purchase the golf course about four ask a half years ago.
At the time of the purchase the golf worst--was a failing business.
This was heading in the same direction as the Rio rancho golf course.
That closure devastated the community.
E we have increased staff from 40 to well over 170.
This is not a Tanoan or ACC or Clannian club.
This is a very busy, noisy commercial setting.
All the day to day activities include more than 40,000 golfers a year, 13,000 golf court Rentales and a well over $100 10 100,000 people visiting.
We have outdoor live Muzic three days a week.
We have weddings, celebrations, and those events will have live music.
We also have numerous golf tournaments throughout the year that have 150 to 200 people gathering next to the subject property.
The golf course are very intertwined and close to each other.
It's right in the heart of Noise-Making activities of the golf course.
I have Video and pictures that give you idea of how close it would be.
These videos and pictures were taken last Thursday during a fund-raiser golf tournament for the Hispano Chamber of Comers S.
This goes through the bar and grill and to the driving range.
And you'll see it's right in the heart of the golfing and day to day activity.
[Video playing with indistinguishable Audio].
>> the next Video shows unofficial noise level reading at the Northwest corner.
And it shows how close our golfing activities are to the it.
[Video playing with muffled Audio].
>> that's how close it is to the golf course ask in--and the noisy activities going on.
Could you put up picture number one?
This is the picture where you'll see our Proshop on the left.
You'll see the Inn in the distance.
We have approximately 200 people.
I think this is about 8 o'clock in the morning.
This is a picture with golf carts lined up.
You see the cart path that is going to have our 40,000 golfers, 13,000 golf carts a year driving down this cart path right outside the doors and windows.
I guess I'm going to have to pass my time up.
>> I'm a real estate land use partner.
I represent him and his business.
This application is pretty simple.
As long as you completely ignore my client's property.
The Ido criteria says you can do that.
It says the exact opposite.
The Epc said no findings of impact.
That's Becausether confused.
They didn't know if they can consider the noise in evaluating the zone change.
And they were confused with picture of distances presented at the end of the hearing about which is closer to the Inn or neighbors to the West.
It ignores the fact that all of the noise is not located at the end of the building that's not having an entrance.
All of the outdoor noise is centrally located.
The building tilt along that side and there's trees.
Golf cart path that goes around the building.
The Ido has a list of criteria for granting a zone change.
The current zoning should be presumed correct unless the applicant proved, apologies, that they met all of the requirements to the zone change.
It's not one or two or majority it's every single one.
You'll NOTE we responded to a Lut--lot of criteria with presentations to Epc.
Among nose--they should have satisfied the Albuquerque Commons.
>> at its heart my client's concern is that the Rml zoning which allows elementary school and middle school in addition to single family and multifamily housing on this project is simply incompatible with the property and Harms this property section 6-7-G3 one of the criteria for zone change says it's the applicant's burden to prove there is no damage to the adjacent property.
Therefore the zone change must me denied.
The properties have the same zone.
Non-Residential commercial.
This is consistent with what the use was before the Ido and what happened since 2017 in that adoption.
If the zone change is granted you'll have two zones next to each other that have different intensities.
There's going to be new regulations on the property and it's amazing how--that's where the burden goes.
One of the first ones is the landscape ordinance.
You have an ordinance required addition additional landscaping buffer.
Right now that's not necessary.
Because they're the same zone.
As soon as you become Rml in particular, there is requirement for 20-Foot buffer and that has to have trees.
Maybe bushes and walls, but maybe tree.
You saw what it look likes.
I don't know if you want to put trees right next to concrete.
My client is not going to be able to do that.
It's going to be a lot of money and time spent before you able to concede that you can start your project.
The good news is it only gets triggered in certain circumstances.
So they said no big deal you shouldn't freak out about that, but my client is already planning a project that will trigger it.
My client already put in 2 $2 million.
Let's talk about the noise ordinance.
You saw my client put the screen shot up with 65, 70 reading.
The commercial reading maximum is 70.
He's operating above residential.
It's legal now and will be illegal as soon as this come.
Mr. Dimena testified that we work with them.
And we don't think there will be problems but the issue it's not my burden to prove that they definitely occur.
It's them to prove that it does not have harm to adjacent property.
If you think my client has a rational concern and the record shows he does the zoning criteria requires you to deny the zone change.
I San Franciscoed .>> Coun . Benton: any questions for the Protester?
>> Coun . Sanchez: I have a question.
Mr. BAYLY, I know the area very well.
I grew up on the West side.
I've been on the West side my whole life.
I know the amount of golfers you have up there.
And I know how close it is.
My biggest concern is the safety for the individuals that are actually going to be living there based on when you decide you want to grow.
When you decide to grow you're going to have an issue with getting in and out.
Right now, it's almost one vehicle in and one comes out.
If something happens or there's a medical emergency in that situation or in that assisted.
>> Coun . Sanchez: and the noise, the fact that you're going to be growing, the fact that it turns your noise ordinance that you--you legal the minute they open the facility.
I tend to think that my biggest issue is the safety issue of the seniors that are there and I think we can find a better place for the seniors to be instead of right next to extremely busy golf course that's growing and growing.
That's just my personal thing.
I think we need to look as city Councillors look for the safety of the folks that are going to be living in this facility.
I honestly think that later on there's going to be a lot more conflict between both entities as time goes on.
Based on what we're hearing right now and I think that since we're here early on, the reasonable thing to do is to help these folks find another area to put their 20 people that is very, very important but I also think there's a safety issue.
And also a continued issue of disagreement throughout the years is going to happen in this facility.
>> I really think we're just seeing with the limited time we're seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Just putting assisted living facility in the middle of a very busy commercial environment and the access just up country club Lane can get severely congested at times.
We're very concerned with the safety of the people.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Mr. President, I also want today make one last comment.
We already have two entities in disagreement.
And this is going to not end here.
It's going to continue to be a disagreement and it will continue to go on.
How many of us want to fight with our neighbor?
That's my biggest issue in reference to this zone change.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Lewis.
>> Coun . Lewis: Thank you, Mr.
There's a lot of activity during the day time.
And there's also activity in the evening.
And we have other locations that are similar to yours that are near Cottonwood Mall and I get complaints that are half a mile away from them.
It sounds like the Nightlife at this golf course, which I've never seen it like that before, but it's great to see people taking advantage of the services and the restaurant and another place to be able to socialize.
Those kinds of places I know are extremely valuable on the West side.
Yet, you all have the houses on that golf courses that are pretty close to you.
I've not heard any, how is the relationship between the golf course and the existing residents that are on the course?
>> we get comments on a regular basis how much people appreciate the work we're doing and the renovations we've done and how we've saved the Combaufl course.
And we've saved the property values because the golf course was going.
We get compliments on a regular basis.
>> Coun . Lewis: so this used to be a bed and breakfast.
And imagine it complimented the golf course in many ways and there's weddings held on this specific facility.
People that come to the golf course stay at the bed and breakfast that would take advantage of the other services and many times it was a destination for the golf course and surrounding area.
It's a commercial facility.
And I want to mention the existing parking for that facility.
My understanding is that the golf course owns most of the parking for that facility?
>> we do not own--there's 15 parking spaces.
Just past where the line stops, that is our drive way coming in.
For them to access their parking spot they have to drive through our property to get to those parking spots.
My concern is with an assisted living facility they're going to be providing meals, we calculated 800 meals a week.
You're going to have delivery vehicles and semi, because we have them delivering our food.
We don't see where they're going to park or turn around or unload.
We don't see the parking and the area outside for the delivery vehicles and people that are going to have coming in and out of the facility.
>> Coun . Lewis: you have a large tent right in the center of the entertainment area.
I think I'd imagine 20 feet or yards in walking distance to the first resident that would be in that area.
Could you imagine with the current entertainment and the Nightlife you have there now someone sleeping in that window right there and in that area that's so close to where that area is?
I'm having a hard time understanding if that's possible to have quality of life at 9 o'clock on a Friday that would be that close as their residence.
>> and you saw the golf carts lined up, and that was a tournament, this week we're having a tournament this Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
You're going to see golf carts lined up and it's going to be a noisy environment four days in a row.
I don't know what the quality of life would be inside that.
They show the picture of the backyard, it's going to be very noisy in that backyard as well.
>> Coun . Benton: I have a question of my own.
Mr. Billy, and Ms. Jacoby.
It's a different for me to absorb.
The discussion about you have to prove no damage to the adjacent property, you are really making the argument for the applicant.
Where they're saying there's no problem from their standpoint.
It's an odd question for us to to be speculating as to damage that is being alleged that may be done from your property to theirs.
I'm having a hard time understanding whose interest you're talking about as far as protection of one from the other.
And you're talking about potential complaints coming from this proposed use change affecting your property.
That's based on, again, some sort of potential for nuisance.
I know that we do have Mr.
I believe we'll hear from him.
>> Mr. President, you can call on him at any point as a city staff member.
>> Coun . Benton: I'm sorry, doctor.
>> may I answer, Mr. President?
>> I really appreciate it.
It shows how hard it is to communicate in five minutes.
The section D of the criteria is talking about harm caused by the zone change.
Any permissive use to the new zone category.
That's we're looking at single family, multifamily or schools.
So, the requirement is the applicant look at all of the permissive uses in their zone and analyze whether that causes harm to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, community in general.
It specifically calls out--like I said, if you ignore my client's property it makes a lot of sense.
You can't ignore my client's property.
The applicant has to prove that none of the permits will cause harm.
>> Coun . Benton: but the alleged noise is coming from your property.
>> if we violate the noise ordinance we get a nice call from Dr.Dimena.
>> Coun . Benton: I understand.
>> it is absolutely unusual.
>> Coun . Benton: when the applicant is saying we don't see any problem for our residents but you're saying your residents are going to complaint about us.
>> Coun . Benton: and also, the single family residents nearby don't complain.
We do know how unhappy Rio rancho residents are with their golf course.
But that doesn't mean you never get noise complaints.
I think we had three over the last couple of years.
None of which have been sustained or proven.
They are much further away.
That noise is going to be a lot louder er er on the subject property.
I don't think we'll in trouble on other people's property, this one is so close and no trees or nothing between, that people sitting in the backyard which is beautiful and would want to sit in the backyard are going to hear that noise.
And we measured it and you can see it's legal, if that property is commercial, and it's illegal if if it's residential.
I think the doctor would be reasonable in interpreting the ordinance and isolate sounds and doing all kinds of things to try to help.
There's no guarantee that's going to work.
And there's no guarantee a future administration or policymaker would choose to read the ordinance stricter and not--he was making interpretations to say we might not have a problem.
There's no guarantee there's not a problem.
If there's a complaint by anyone in the future, [inaudible].
There's no guarantee someone is not going to make a complaint.
As soon as they do our current activity are going to be illegal and get cited and we're going to have to make adjustments.
We don't know what those might be it could go all the way to shutting us down.
>> Coun . Davis: We've spoken so much about Dr. Dimena, would you grace us.
If you were sworn in, please.
This has gone on longer than we thought.
Thank you for joining us.
Can I ask based on anything you've heard in tonight's hearing, doctor, do you anticipate any of the noise documented by the Protester, the golf carts and the whatever, are those exempt from the noise ordinance?
Or do you anticipate the noise ordinance applies this evening?
>> Councilor Benton, Councilor Davis, the golf cart specifically, no.
I think probably exempt under the ordinance based on vehicles meeting traffic code.
They're never--unless they're idle Ing they're not persistent.
I just heard Mr. Bailly talk about delivery trucks.
The trucks themselves idling would fall under the same exemption.
But if they're dropping off food and have Refrigerating commitment--equipment would not be exempt.
We would have to talk about how they're parked.
They would have to be shut off.
>> Coun . Davis: We have these other issues all over town.
We have lots of adjoining uses really close like this.
The applicants and the protesters have shown in the map where these Youthses go--uses go back and forth.
I realize some other policymaker down the road could decide to be strict on this and bring case law on this.
Is there a pattern of the city having a significant amount of complaints for these two adjoins uses and having this issue under the noise ordinance?
This is a thing we should really worry about?
>> thanks for the question.
What's been said so far in the discussion and in our discussion yesterday with all parties involved, I don't want it to come across like we would be lenient and cooperative and looking to help everybody.
That's not the best way to characterize what I'm saying.
I'm saying the noise ordinance is a wet Noodle.
If we're getting a situation where there's a lot of complaints . We get a lot of a lot of complaints where this is all over the city.
Most of you who talked about this, we almost never resolve the issue.
The problem, very Fundament Lael with the ordinance is an objective tool fixing a subjective problem.
People can hear noise, it keeps them up they hate the music, and they want to use noise Ordnance as a way to enforce that.
90% when we go and take readings they're in compliance.
Yes I hear it, and your windows are vibrating but it's not loud enough to trigger a violation.
We try to fine tune this in 2017.
But in trying to do so, if we made the requirement any more stringent you would start restricting people's conversations or the Buzz from their Fluorsent lighting.
It's difficult to Parse out the constituents of the sound and from the videos I think we're going to have a similar problem.
We'll get a clot of complaints and make phone calls to the parties involved.
I don't know there can be constructive outcomes where we resolve this with violations.
Typically what we deal with is trying to work with all parties to come up with a different way to resolve that.
Build a wall, plant more trees, turn the volume down.
>> Coun . Davis: Thank you.
This sounds like what Aboutism.
It seems to me from the record we've heard the applicant knows what they're getting into.
And in my opinion whether they develop a senior living home or Mortuary or night club, it's going to be their obligation with tenants to understand what they're getting into and who the neighbors are and what's that going to be and for current operators can't really control.
I realize that five Decibel difference may make a difference in some large scale violation.
I just don't see this as an issue where everybody's uninformed and we're forcing a war of the neighbors.
This seems like a case that's gone over a year for golf cart noise that was exempt anyway.
And the rest of it seems like secondary to that.
I think we resolved to my Stakz that the primary concern would not bring it into violation and the rest can be resolved.
I'm inclined to see no problem with the zone method.
>> Coun . Lewis: doctor, you studied the noise in the current property in the evening and day time and all the different noises that come from the golf course.
>> not in this specific case.
I'm only talking generalities about the noise ordinance itself.
I wouldn't even make the effort to say anything we studied would be meaningful.
It take as different DJ or band when you talk about a live music event to throw everything out the window.
We have a pretty clear idea of this particular facility.
But we do also get complaints from other facilities.
>> Coun . Lewis: if you haven't tested the specific time and areas we really can't comment on that.
We could only really I guess answer a few questions like this.
That would be, is there a difference on whether the golf course would have violations on whether the property, regardless of whether they're Complainting or not, is a commercial property the way it's zoned or residential property the way it tends to be zoned.
Can you take a sample at one point when oats--it's a commercial then changes to residential property.
Would it change because of that?
Higher potential of violation because of the change of the zone?
>> Councilor Benton, Councilor Lewis, by Deafination absolutely.
I'm trying to find the sweet spot on am microphone.
By definition it would be different if it was commercial versus residential.
They're contemplated at different level.
And there is an important distinct Swhen--when you talk about the residential as the receptor.
There's the only time where we actually take an outdoor reading if that's what the nature of the complaint inasmuch talking about a situation where somebody wants to use a back patio and back porch.
There's a huge difference just because you're talking about a different part of the table.
>> Coun . Lewis: it's a huge difference.
There could be zero violations with how it's zoned right now and there could be violations all day long if it was zoned residential.
That could be the case, correct?
>> Councilor Benton, Councilor Lewis, it's a more complicated answer, but for the sake of time yes.
>> Coun . Lewis: we don't know because we haven't taken actual samples from the current use.
By the way, this golf course has been an incredible success, we almost lost it four years ago.
This Council did an incredible job reducing the water usage.
We almost lost this course.
We would have been like Rio rancho and home values would have gone down.
So no--now it's operating in a specific way, it's successful and providing services.
If it were to change to residential, meaning let's put more residential places and change the zoning for it when we have plenty of other residential zoning, in fact we have too much.
The people that are Anti- development are usually against residential homes.
They're against residential type living.
That's exactly what this zone change would do.
Ego from commercial Servicess which by the why the code in Inencourages.
Our adopted city zoning says on the West side, it encourages more commercial service type Facilitys . and discourages changing the zoning from commercial to residential.
In light of all that, and even that we don't know and could make a good guess with certainty and say that there will be violations.
There will be a change in potential violations whether it's zoned commercial or residential.
With the fact that I think we don't know the specifics of that, I think it makes me even more concerned.
And I can imagine how much it makes the business owner concerned as well as all of the other families and homes that would be concerned if that golf course was threatened in any way by the success of that.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you, doctor.
We have a cross examination period for the applicant.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
I've never cross examined anybody.
I'm trying to pull up a map that's in one of the Epc staff reports that shows a survey done on this property.
I would like to ask Mr. BAYLY some questions.
I'm sorry, I didn't think to bring copies of the survey.
It was done by Curtesian survey.
A reputable firm in Albuquerque or Rio rancho.
And what I would like to ask him--Oh, okay.
What the survey shows is that the golf cart path are actually Inroaching on my client's property.
Both on the East and on the West.
And some of the pictures that they showed during their testimony of the golf carts lined up against the wall, is actually on our property.
I believe from what I saw in the photos that the golf carts were within our property line to the West.
The golf paths you can see Dpoez in and out of the property.
It goes through the property to the East and connects to country club Lane.
I would perhaps like Mr. BAYLY to comment on all those in encroach encroachments encroachments.
>> Coun . Benton: before he answers.
There's an easement dedicated.
Or they're just shown physically on the drawing?
>> Coun . Benton: there's no shared land agreement.
That's going to be our first legal hurdle.
They have legal access to their parking spots.
And we've already discussed this Inroachment on their property.
Where we have plans to build the cart path around their property.
It's going to Elim that that.
There was a picture with the sound meter and I believe all the carts in that picture were actually across this property line which I believe is on our property line.
That picture that was on the other thing was a view from this direction where there are carts on their property as well as carts on our property.
We're just going to move those four to six feet out of the property when we extend that cart path out this direction.
>> Coun . Benton: Ms. Fishman, I'm sorry I interrupted you.
>> and the other part to that, Mr. BAYLY, also spoke about country club Lane being owned by the golf course.
All of the property owners on country club Lane use the same road way.
I'm not sure how it got to be where it is today.
That's seeming like an error on the city's part.
If that is truly a private road way and there's no easement for the benefit of all of the owners on country club Lane, that's a problem.
We did talk about all these items at Epc.
It was two very long hearings we Duked it out.
In the end Epc saw beyond some of the arguments and again recommended approval.
In terms of parking--okay.
>> Mr. President, I think MS.
Jacoby was objecting suggesting that this portion of the hearing is reserved for cross examination, in other words she can ask questions related to the testimony that has been entered.
But not necessarily enter new testimony or advocacy on the issue.
Mr. President, I'll ask a question.
Mr. BAYLY, is it your intent to block access to this property to the current owners of the property?
>> country club Lane comes off of golf course, that's the access for all the residential properties on both sides of country club Lane.
As it comes up there's a drive way and in this area.
That's where country club Lane ends.
Right somewhere in this area.
And this is our parking lot.
And drive way coming this direction.
That is their legal access on the property.
Where are we at as far as blocking spots, we've never had this discussion.
Anymore they haven't said we can't drive across their property.
I'm concerned about the large vehicles, the delivery vehicles blocking.
Like it was mentioned it's very limited access coming in there.
I'm not sure about the larger trucks where they're going to park or unload.
Right now I have no intentions of blocking your parking.
We'll move to cross examination by the Protester.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
I do have some questions for Dr.
My understanding that the golf cart exception you believe falls under Preempttion.
And you believe the motor vehicle code would preempt the Localal Daex LOC>> I would say the traffic code.
And it's also because it's not going to be persistent and continuous unless they're idling.
>> how many minutes it takes persistent and continuous?
Please remind us what limit constitutes persistent and continuous?
>> it has to be over a period of ten minutes during each one minute interval it has to be in excess of the allowable level.
>> I know you mentioned the traffic code, we talked about the motor vehicle code.
Which is 67-7-9 which States shall not prohibit local authorities.
>> right here, operation of golf carts on public lands and property under their jurisdiction.
And all of the interpretations you gave regarding whether gatherings might be--I forget the word for gathering, occasional and not too frequent.
That might be exempt, golf carts can be exempt, golf carts you might single instead of the row of golf carts.
Are any interpretations required by the noise ordinance or your reasonable interpretation?
>> I think we just look at the exemption.
Beyond that it's under enforcement discretion.
The reality of trying to take readings over a single golf carts or series of golf carts is something we frequently encounter and try to enforce this ordinance.
It would be easier to take reading physical the golf carts are moving from their maintenance shed to the first tee to-->> the honest answer is I haven't taken any readings to establish that.
It would be a wild guess.
>> one of the things we talk about that sank in my gut, when you said you got persistent problems and we try and it doesn't work out and more complaints we go back and forth they resolve themselves by a business giving up and leaving.
Is that your experience with these--one neighbor or another giving up, is that your experience with the wet Noodle ordinance?
>> I say typically one party gives up.
Most of the time it's the complainant.
They get tired of calling us and hearing of the technical reasons of why we haven't been able to change anything.
>> if you do find a reading you can substantiate as a violation.
When we have music on Thursday and Fridays in the open and you're able to substantiate a complaint, who do you go to fix it?
>> we go to the owner if the other than is somebody we can get a hold of.
Otherwise, we go to the general manager and start there.
>> okay so you're saying if a complaint is Substantiated and you notice noise issue you're going to tell my client they need to make changes, is that accurate?
We start with a phone call if we know how to get a hold of them.
And by part of our typical administrative process we also send a letter.
>> I think that's all of my question.
Thank you, Mr. President, members of the Council.
We appreciate your attention to the matter.
I have copies of the statutes that were cited to enter into the record.
>> Coun . Benton: We'll go to rebuttal and closing by the applicant.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
If somebody can pull up my presentation.
Mr. President, Councilors, the last slide I wanted to show is the map the supporters of this zone change.
And you'll note that the supporters are very close to the subject property.
They're very close to the golf course.
We have 34 people that signed our petition.
And a handful of them don't live very close to the golf course.
We only map the ones that are adjacent to our property or adjacent to the golf course.
And these are 34 people that indicated their support.
And I don't think that should be discounted.
I don't think one property owner's interest should override everything else.
This property owner talking about the golf course not even their own case, they bought this property knowing that there was residential zoning.
This was residentially zoned in the past before Ido.
The Ido made it commercial.
We want to go back to what we had.
But residential was allowed.
72 town homes, 16 unit guest house, plus the golf course.
We're trying to get that back.
This is a separate parcel.
It's not part of the golf course.
It may seem like it's part of the golf course, it's not.
If Mr. BAYLY was as concerned as he's presenting about this Three-Quarter acre site maybe you should have bought the property instead of just trying to prevent something from happening there.
I find it very troublesome as President Benton, you explained, and the same thing the Epc said.
We're trying to project this condition in the future that we don't know is going to happen.
We're saying it's going to happen.
And it's all about how our use would damage an existing use.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't care how many times we talk about it, it doesn't make sense.
This is a residential neighborhood.
The golf course is surrounding by single family houses and some rentals and we are just trying to reinstate that residential use.
I showed in the overhead, the survey, if there was any issue about parking, this applicant has a chunk of property to the east of the building they could create more parking.
I don't think it's going to be.
These 20 people that live in the building are not going to be driving.
There's going to be a handful of staff that go there.
They have 13 or 15 spaces.
I think that's more than enough.
If they needed more parking in the future they can create it to the east of the building.
With that I urge your support.
This has been a long process.
I think it's pretty straightforward.
We've gotten very confused by the noise ordinance.
We've heard from Dr. Dimena three times.
And I trust what he says.
I don't think this is going to be an issue.
And again I just urge your support.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
>> Coun . Lewis: Thank you, Mr.
I think it was I heard that pretty clear from Dr. Dimena that with this zone change it could be very clearly change the violations and create violations with the existing use.
Whether the new facility complaint or not, this directly puts this business in danger of violating our noise ordinance laws because of that.
Based on it's existing use right now.
I do have a lot of concerns over the noise and the use of the current facility and how it's--and the success of the course.
That's contributing to as well.
The other big concern just has to do with--it was mentioned that this was residential or zoned residential before the Ido changed it, yet it was commercial use for however long that hotel has been there which is several decades.
It's been there a long time.
For the comments about how the golf course was purchased and probably never imagined, that it would change.
That it would change back to residential where it would be a threat and that kind of way pause that's been the usage of that specific facility.
And not just adjacent to them, it almost in encompassed by the golf course and entertainment of the golf course.
And another point is that I just want to say again that Inport parts of the city there's a big difference.
We often on the West side see that there's many--and we complain.
We complain about sprawl.
About we just build more residential areas.
And so, the people that are against the sprawl are really like what about the services.
And what about doing more density closer to the urban areas.
And we're taking policies that we have in the zoning code that says we need more services in these areas of residential areas.
And also discourages zone changes from commercial to residential.
So, I see a lot of not furthering the purpose of our zoning code.
I have listed some findings that I think based on the testimony tonight and the record from the Epc I think the Epc missed a lot of this without looking at the purpose of our zoning codes and really Miss some of those.
Mr. President, I'm going to make a motion to deny the zone change and I have some findings that will present to the Council.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion to deny, is there a second?
Second from Councilor Sanchez.
>> Coun . Lewis: Mr. Melendrez is it appropriate to read these?
>> it's probably better for staff to give an overview.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Lewis, what you have in front of you are proposed alternative findings.
There are findings included in the ordinance that support adoption of the zone map amendments.
These support denial of the zone map.
This is--these outline policies in the comprehensive plan that the request does not further which supports the motion for denial.
And the last section jumps into the zone map amendment criteria and provides justification for why the request has not adequately justified what the Ido requires.
I'd stand for any questions on the specifics.
All the text you see in blue on this exhibit is the narrative behind why the request has not been Adkwkt Equately justified per the ordinance.
>> Coun . Benton: I have a question.
There are a couple on the second page where it saying that the policy is not furthered because it's not in a center order.
Isn't that--the policy is not furthered because it's not in the area but the policy isn't really about--it's not saying it has to be in a corridor for it to be further does it?
>> Mr. President, give me a moment to review the policy you're referring.
>> Coun . Benton: on the second page.
Capture regional growth and centers and quarters.
That doesn't preclude capturing growth outside does it?
>> Mr. President, I believe that can be interpretation.
>> Coun . Benton: it has to be-->> correct it's not in a center or corridor.
>> Coun . Benton: Similarly, 5.2.1 is focusing on certain places where it would be desirable to have higher density housing with the centers and corridors.
It's not exclusive to that.
Convenient access to transit.
I would think this policy from the COMP plan is talking about the certain areas where these patterns are Dewriter Sire able desirable.
It's not meant to include these types of areas and developments.
>> Mr. President, I think that's correct.
The centers and corridor approach in the comprehensive plan says we should focus growth in those areas and establish centers and corridors.
But there's not a hard and fast policy there cannot be growth anywhere else.
It uses the word encourage explicitly.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
>> Coun . Lewis: Mr. President, of course it's--I think you have to look at does the change--this is not about is it against the law or not.
It's about does it further the purpose.
Does it further the idea and the heart of what we're getting at.
We can go on about just a mix of uses.
Does it encourage mix of uses?
Well this policy by doing this would not further that because our ml zone district will not permit mix of uses in that area.
It's like everything else.
That's a great example of it doesn't further it.
And the other examples are pretty clear that this type of a zone change would not further the objectives and including 5-4-2 capacity for commercial office West of the Rio Grande to support additional job growth.
This policy is not further because the request of Rml does not allow for commercial land uses.
It preserves the commercial development.
So there's a pretty extensive amount of findings because this changes applies to so many parts of the policy.
>> Coun . Benton: I appreciate that, Councilor.
I'm just trying to Procedurally understand where we are right now.
With a big agenda still ahead.
Our instructions is that findings must be distributed.
That doesn't mean we're accepting the findings, or does it?
If we vote in affirmative on the appeal?
>> Mr. President, if the vote to deny the zone map amendment was supported the assumption is the findings support that motion.
>> Coun . Benton: if there's some we don't agree with?
If some of the findings not agreeable to the Council.
Or would they automatically be adopted?
>> Mr. President, the findings presented if you were to support the motion to deny.
They would be defined in support of the motion.
To the extent that the Councilor want to support the motion but not the finding, they can offer any changes to the finding they felt appropriate otherwise if a Councilor disagreed with all the findings they would vote against the motion.
>> Coun . Benton: We're basically proceeding with package of finding we're just now digesting.
>> Coun . Lewis: typically we might actually vote on the motion and come back on the following week to finalize the finding.
If you're not comfortable adopting finding tonight and the motion to do my is passed you can amend to up Dopt at at a later time.
The way you stated the motion was denial.
If you want to limit that to Dopt findings at a later date you can take these findings under advisement.
If they want to give feedback they have the opportunity.
Ats your next meeting you have opportunity to vote on finding.
The Council can give feed back and we address it at the next meeting with--because the intention of this was just trying to be thorough.
Yet, there's Thingsope Toon interpretation we can focus on.
If I--do I need to change the motion at all?
Basically, it's a motion to denial.
With findings we would formalize at later time.
>> I think that captures what you're talking about.
>> Coun . Benton: thanks for the clarification.
We do have a motion and a second.
That's a tough decision for me.
I have a hard time with the logic presented in a way.
I think it's going to go the way it goes.
Unless there's any other questions we'll go to a vote.
The motion is for a denial of the application.
All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
That passes on a 6-3 vote.
We will-->> Mr. President, we'll have an item on the next agenda limited to only adoption of finding.
We'll have to go through the hearing again at that time--specifically to findings and support.
And the matter will be final.
>> Coun . Benton: the reason I raise this, I do think it creates some sort of precedent.
How we act and justify our decisions.
That's pretty important stuff.
I'm going to move to suspend the rules to continue the meeting until 11:00.
There's a motion and second.
All those in favor say yes.
We'll move now to item C.
Councilor Bassan and Councilor Pe} a.
O-34, redistricting the nine city council districts of the city of Albuquerque.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Thank you, Mr.
It's redistricting nine city council districts in the city of Albuquerque.
Actually probably would start out with a motion for deferral.
I'd like to hear the presentations and hear from anybody who is signed up to speak just because for the sake of time I think really asking for redistricting at 10:30 at night when people don't have an opportunity to voice their concerns or really be part of the process isn't the way to go.
My motion would be for a deferral of O-34.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion and a second.
We do have a person signed up to speak.
>> Coun . Pe} a: I would like to do the presentation and we'll go to public comment.
Deferral until the next meeting.
>> Coun . Benton: who is going to be giving the presentation?
Okay, Ms. Morris on the screen.
>> good evening, Mr. President.
We have Britney from research and polling.
They gave us a great overview of the committee process earlier this spring.
And we had wise words from chair McGill.
We have a more detailed presentation on the map that you have to consider.
There were eight maps recommended for consideration by the Council.
While there's one attached to the bill before you for consideration.
I'm available to answer any questions as is Julian.
And also we have Britney and Michael and Brian from research and polling on the line to answer any questions.
With that, I'll hand it over to Britney for presentation.
Good evening, Councilor Benton, Councilors.
I'm going to jump right in.
I'm going to share my screen just so we can really briefly a reminder of where we are.
These are the current Council districts.
The district numbers are on top and the second number in the gray box is the deviation from the ideal population.
As we talked about last time I was with you all, we're required by state law for that deviation to be within plus or minus five percent.
You can see in the current Council district which districts are within that percent and which districts are not.
District five is too large.
And will need to get smaller and shed population.
District one and three are the other West side districts are within plus or minus, but on the higher end.
And altogether the three West side districts have about 23% too many people.
They have about 23% of Council seat too many people on the West side.
Which means one or more of the East side districts will need to cross the river and take in some of the excess population on the West side.
You can see in the East side districts, these are all on the lower end.
District six and District eight are both too small.
And will need to grow and pick up population.
And the other thing to note is that because of the requirements those East side that across to the West side can only across win city limits and we only placed across here is between I-40 and central and a little bit south of central.
All of that in mind, as was said we worked with your redistricting committee to come up with recommendations for you to consider.
And as you any the committee sent eight map concepts for you.
The one attached to the bill is concept a which received the highest rating from the committee members.
We thought we'd take a little time to walk through what concept a does.
So, I'll pull that up now.
Concept a, we think about as a minimal change plan.
The idea is that we change the boundaries only to accommodate those population issues.
And try to keep the core of existing districts intact.
I'm going to turn on the boundaries of the current districts in the green and white so you can see where the changes are.
So you have district five too large and needed to Skring--shrink and lose population.
This moves district five and District one from montano.
And it takes this neighborhood from district five and puts it into district one to eat some of the population in district five.
The other thing hat happened is East side district needs to come across the river and pick up excess population.
Under concept a it's district two that comes across.
Downtown district comes across the river between I-40 and central to Coors and takes Pat hurley and West Mesa neighborhoods from district one.
District three is unchanged.
It's the same as current district.
District four and District nine are also unchanged.
District two having picked up that extra population from the West side ends only crossing I-25 south of Gibson.
Otherwise it stays West of I-25.
District six picks up population moving from Buena Vista to I-25 and taking University West.
Which is where Tingly is and the University satellite.
And the other change is distribute eight needed to pick up population moved into district seven just from Montgomery and Eubank to Wyoming.
Concept retained three Hispanic majority districts in district one, two, and three.
Again this is the one that is in the bill.
And also was rated the highest by the committee.
There are seven other concepts in the report that were recommended.
I'm going to give you a brief over view.
Two of them are really similar to concept a.
Map one which was the fourth highest rated plan moves a handful of precincts between district one and two and nine and seven and seven and eight just to equalize the population further to get it closer.
Citizen map two is even more similar to concept a and was actually the second most popular plan as rated by the committee.
Moves the boundary more between district eight and seven to continue to increase the population in district eight slightly.
Those three concepts are really similar.
And they build off the existing districts.
The other plans are a little different.
Concept D, the idea there is that West side is really similar to concept a, but concept nine--that was the third highest ranked plan by the committee.
Concept a the idea was to redistributed the downtown area between two districts . District six comes into the Southern part of downtown and District two retains the northern part.
Citizen map three, the idea coming from the individual that submitted this map to the committee is uniting some of the historic areas in the downtown District with some of the historic areas in the University area.
Some of the other neighborhoods putting that in the same district in district two.
Which means district six comes and takes part of Barelas.
Citizen map four is absolutely identical to citizen map two except for district six and seven.
Under current district, District seven is stacked on top of district six.
And under citizen map four district seven is sort of on the West side and District six is on the East side of that area.
Under current districts, seven and six are separated by Lomas and under citizen map four seven and six are separated by essentially San Mateo.
And finally, citizen map five creates four majority districts and takes two districts across the river.
District two and District six all the way to Unser.
That's a quick and dirty summary of all eight plans.
I'm happy do stand for questions or Describen Eany plain in more detail.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you for that summary.
We do have a person signed up to speak.
Why don't we hear from him and see where we want to go.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
I'll try to make this briefer than I had planned.
I was member on the committee.
I was a Non-Voting member.
Thank you for the opportunity.
It was fascinates to see where we were, where we're going.
Hearing all the different opinions.
A couple really quick Takeaways.
Our city has changed drastically.
But to use Councilor Lewis's words the people stacking in his district is tremendous.
I live down here and prefer to walk.
When I drive out there, you can see the positive impact the Residentvise--vise have had in that area.
To use a status quo map would be a disservice to the city.
If you look at the current map compared to the 2000S that change is bigger.
I ask you amend more maps being included.
The second is change in population.
Hispanic population has grown.
We're 48.7% of the population city.
We'll be the majority of the population very soon.
And our current maps, include Ing all of the maps except for future map, discount that.
We had experts share testimony saying we needed to further the voting rights act we need to include that in the map making decision.
It doesn't take much to see the Hispanics are not Adkwktly represented on the Council.
>> Coun . Benton: you have a third point you did not get to?
>> Coun . Benton: since you waited this long.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
My final question was to amend or add in the fairness or future for discussion at Council or defer this to another time for discussion.
>> Coun . Benton: I think there's an interest in deferring.
Thanks for sticking with us.
And thanks for serving on the committee.
>> we have a couple speakers on zoom.
>> Mr. President, members of the Council it's great to see you in chambers.
Although do Miss cookies Chiming in every now in then.
I'm policy director for the center of civic policy.
I'm here to ask for deferral in support of Councilor Pe} a's motion for deferral.
I know it was to hear this at the next Council meeting.
My asking for defer just longer so we have more representation by our communities.
Every ten years the Council has a mandate to evaluate Redistrict redistricting (the redistricting committee was confined to a July deadline while Council had the opportunity to engage more with the public.
As the Redistrictic member mentioned that it was a fascinating experience.
Although it was a long process to get there.
To have our community voicing why they supported each map was also important.
Like Mr. Baca was mentioning, I think all of the maps should have a consideration and evaluation.
Specifically adopting map five for our future map would have four Hispanic voting age districts to represent our growing population.
This only happens every ten years.
You must account for the changes.
This will also present five black and indigenous communities.
>> thank you, your time sup.
>> good evening, thank you.
>> Mr. President, it looks like we lost Maureen.
I can let you know when she Rejoins the meeting.
>> Coun . Benton: Let's see if she gets back on.
Councilors, we do have a motion for deferral until our next meeting.
There's a discussion about perhaps we might need--perhaps a little bit longer than that.
I'll leave that up to Councilor Pe} a.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Mr. President, we actually have a couple of floor amendments that without belaboring anything Maybe if at least an opportunity for the public to hear what those two amendments are.
>> Coun . Pe} a: the first one is Mr. President from Councilor Davis.
>> Coun . Davis: Thank you, Mr.
I don't know if Ms. Morris is prepared to present, or I can do it.
>> Coun . Benton: Ms. Morris?
>> yes, let me just share my screen and I can bring up map.
So, Councilor Davis's amendment, this amendment proposes to print out the exhibit associated with the bill.
Each of the bill--each of the amendments you might hear tonight all make the same change in that they switch out the exhibit to the bill.
The exhibit to the bill is a 13-Page document witch--contains a map of the counsel district, a data sheet and two pages of precinct information.
So, Councilor Davis's amendment switches out concept map a with citizen map four.
We had a good summary on this from Britney.
This map is based on citizen map two.
Which is based on concept map a and makes changes to District six and seven.
District Sixes becomes the International district.
And Council seven contains the uptown area.
University area, Nob Hill and Mesa del Sol.
>> Coun . Davis: Thank you.
I'm sorry to put you on the spot.
We didn't Rehorse horse horse--we won't push this today.
The purpose for this was exactly that.
The International district is one of the disadvantaged neighborhoods and Underinvested neighborhoods.
One of the reasons that happened for so long much like part of the Southwest Mesa before my colleague really started advocating for that as a community is that the District itself is divided between two and a half three city council districts.
What that means is that the International district itself which is poorer than the rest of the city is definitely a minority majority community.
Their votes are Mrit--split.
The opportunity to coordinate capital outlay is often not Newtalized because of other priorities.
We can count the number of individuals and say they're even.
The fact is voter participation is much lower in part because they don't have a single voice and representation and way to elevate their common issues.
We think this is an important conversation to be had.
It creates the opportunity for us to have our first Natd Native-American or African-American city Councillor.
I think that's important for us to consider.
It would consolidate the communities and low income communities and giving them an opportunity to coordinate together instead of among different Councilors who share that neighborhood and not that we leave them apart.
If in the current district six we look at voter turnout, the Councilor can run in district six and not get one vote from the current piece of Ininternational district that's in our district and still in with all the Voerts from the or the that's part of the perpetuating there civic Uninteracting.
I think it's worth considering.
I want to bring that for consideration at the next meeting.
Thank you, Mr. President.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
>> Coun . Pe} a: the next one is from Councilor Fiebelkorn.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Sanchez had a question.
>> Coun . Sanchez: citizen map four we put together.
We all voted on making sure we have representation in each one of our districts and the voters have spoken.
On citizen map four it was rated number seven.
To replace that with concept a is a far reach in my opinion.
I'm also having to give up historical significance in my district.
The area I'm losing in my district has been cultural significant in reference to the Atrisco Krair for generations.
Every single city Councillor except for one that I know of was from the heart of the District which is the lava land John Adams area.
Like you said before, concept a is what the citizens and all of our representatives including everyone here voted for.
Citizen map four falls way to the bottom at number seven of the eight.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Fiebelkorn.
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
I was going to see if Ms. Morris would review map five.
>> Mr. President, Councilors, I shared my screen with citizen map five.
And this amendment is very similar in format to what I just presented to Councilor Davis's amendment.
This instead of concept map a switches out for citizen map five.
Citizen map five is the map that our public Speaker references.
This map speaks to make sure that there are four Hispanic majority Council districts and achieves that.
It also has two Council districts crossing the river.
District two crosses the river and District six crosses the river.
This map makes some changes to District six and includes the International district, some of the Nob Hill Unm area, Mesa del Sol.
A little bit of the Southern portion of downtown and a portion of the West side as well.
And in Council district two, it's primarily made up of the downtown core and a portion of the West side.
This map doesn't make any changes to District three.
There's one small change.
District six is the a Trisco area.
It actually goes to old Coors south of central.
I'm looking at a slimmed down version.
I couldn't quite see that.
Thanks for the correction.
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Ms. Morris.
I'm going to move this at the next meeting.
I really just wanted to bring it up.
As you heard from lot of the speakers tonight the fairness for our futures map is the preferred one for a lot of folks concerned about equity.
I think we should have a conversation around the possibility of having four minority districts on city council.
And what that would look like and the value to the average Albuquerque resident would be.
And I also want to sigh that this is a once in a decade.
One time every ten years we get to do something that can really impact equity in Albuquerque.
I just look forward to that conversation at the next meeting.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Sanchez.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Thank you, Mr.
Again, the voters, our people we actually put on the actual committee voted.
The committee in my opinion could have given us a last few choices to deal with.
Five, six, seven, and eight would not be there.
In my opinion we're going against the will of the people we hired and put on the committee.
And also, we're going against and breaking up culturally significant areas on the West side as well.
I think it's really important we listen to the individuals who we actually put on the committee and go with what our people thought was extremely important for the city of Albuquerque moving forward.
That's the reason why we put the committee together.
That's the when we have the committee.
I think it's important we actually follow the wishes of the committee.
And for me, I'd ready to vote tonight.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Fiebelkorn.
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
I just want to respond to that.
District seven had representation from Travis Kellerman.
He did an amazing job on redistricting committee.
And his number one vote was for the fairness for the future act which is why I brought it forward.
Because I do have complete faith and trust in the person that you pointed to the redistricting committee.
>> Coun . Benton: all right.
There's a discussion about possibly deferral beyond the 2 21st which would be the third.
Is that a Yes at this point?
>> Coun . Bassan: Mr. President, I support a deferral.
I think the next meeting would be fabulous because as far as I'm concerned if we go to the next meeting and defer it again, I think the public has a right to have opinion about this.
We've had high-profile topics on the agenda and they've been Over-Shouldode and not providing the people of Albuquerque to voice.
I'm hoping through Council or Whoever is on social media because I'm not, we let people know this is happening.
For those people that don't know.
This is a once in a decade thing and the public should hear about it.
I Perf we keep it as a deferral.
And I'm not opposed to deferring it again.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Yeah, that work for me.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion for deferral until September 21st.
All those in favor say yes.
Councilor Sanchez opposed.
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
Before I introduce this bill I wanted to thank director Montoya who is Thankfully not here this late.
I wanted to thank the director of Department of municipal development and all the staff at DMD.
They worked with my office, the requested stop sign has been installed and there's a plan to get the crosswalk and the curb cut in place very soon.
And they're working on that.
With that, I will say for R-Some directing the administration to install three way intersections.
>> Coun . Benton: does that require a vote?
There's a motion and a second from Councilor Davis.
All those in favor say yes.
And that passes unanimously.
Councilor Pe} a, Councilor Grout, myself and Councilor Davis.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Thank you, Mr.
President it's establishing community improvement program route 66 along it's entire length through the city making an appropriation and move a due pass.
>> Coun . Benton: I'll second that motion.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Actually, we do have an amendment.
But we actually have director Sanchez who stayed here all night long.
I'd lover for her to come up and talk about, because as you know this is my thing in terms of route 66 celebration coming up in a few years from now.
I know we've already allocated money so we can have some events associated.
Not just one event, but events leading up to and for the route 6610--with this money looking at how we can make changes to the route for the entire stretch in terms of Signage and the like.
And director Sanchez and her staff have been working really hard on this.
>> President Councilor Benton, Councilor Pe} a, I'd like to remark it is after 10 o'clock.
Not necessarily my most articulate at this point.
We're very excited to be working with the Council.
I know we've had several meetings with several Councilors about the whole stretch because it touches so many Council districts.
And we've got several activities we've started focusing on the historic signs.
We have a great partnership with friends of the orphan signs.
We're excited to look at historic signs to work with property owners to figure out how to get those restored in Theneck four years.
We're working with visit Albuquerque on a comprehensive promotional plan.
We're working on a big calendar of Efrbt vents and there's lot of other opportunities for departments to be involved.
Dmd solid waste, planning.
I know there's lot of improvements we want to see from one end to the other.
We have specific plans underway.
Community engagement and we're looking forward to all of those things.
And money can make lot of those things go faster and be lot more robust.
Thank you for your interest and engagement and I'm happy to answer questions or speak about it another time over coffee in the morning.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you, director.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Thank you.
Floor amendment number one is revise on page two section three as follows.
Deletes the section three and inserts the follow amount appropriated from available fund balance to the following program for fiscal year 23 arts and cultural 250,000 there.
It's a clean Skwup replaces the text in section three in entirety.
And just want to end with I'd love to hear from the other sponsors.
I didn't ask Councilor Sanchez if he wanted to sponsor because we can only have up to four Councilors.
I know that his interest and even the interest of Councilors who don't have central is really important to make sure we have a real strong corridor for the city where people enter from the East and West.
I appreciate everybody's input and support on this.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion for the amendment.
And we'll vote on that amendment.
Unless there's any discussion.
All those in favor of the amendment number one say yes.
We're back on the bill as amended.
>> Coun . Grout: Thank you, Mr.
I'd like to thank Councilor Pe} a for taking the lead on this.
I'm really excited to work with you and my other colleagues.
Route 66 is the heart of our city.
And we have an opportunity to really Spruce it up and showcase our city.
I'm really looking forward to working with everybody.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
I'll echo with regard to Councilor Sanchez this is--we can't have five because we're prevented from doing that.
You'll be an integral part of this.
And it will be great to have five Councilors carrying the flag for this.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Thank you, Mr.
And yes, I would totally be in support of this all the way through.
I think it's really, really important and one of the things is I want to be critical as to how well they clean.
I really want it cleaned up and cleaned up nice.
I'm going to be one of those that's very critical on how well it gets cleaned.
Thank you for establishing this bill.
>> Coun . Benton: We're back on the bill as amended.
Councilor Pe} a to close.
>> Coun . Pe} a: urge your support.
>> Coun . Benton: all those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
I think we can--I don't know how quickly we can get through these two.
We'll go ahead and give it a go.
I'll move we suspend the rules until 11:15 and see how we're going.
There's a motion and a second, thank you, Councilor Bassan.
We're back on the agenda.
Item f is R-64 this is my bill calling for stay of enforcement.
Related to Townhouse development in the integrated development ordinance for a time period of one year or until the 2022Ido annual update has been enacted.
Thank you for that second.
I believe I heard Councilor Jones first.
And we do have Ms. Schulz to explain this.
It's something that came up recently that we've noticed that I was surprised to see.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
Apologies, this is going to get into the weeds of the Ido.
This is related to Townhouse development a regulation that says when you are doing Townhouse development and the rear or the side lot line of the Townhouse development Abuts an RA or R1 zone district the townhouses may not be more than three dwelling Yunalitys in size.
Today the Ido says the Townhouse dwelling is anything three or more units.
This particular provision limits it to only three and very explicit circumstances when they're being developed correctly next to the RA zone district.
What this stay of enforcement does calls for the provision to not be enforced only for Townhouse development that's occurring in urban centers, main street corridors or premium transit areas.
The stay of enforcement is specifically limited to those Ucmspt areas because they're supposes to be more urban in nature where Townhouse dwelling of three or more might be appropriate.
The larger scale Townhouse development.
Outside of the areas and the less urban areas of town this provision will stay in place.
The other thing this resolution does is call for the planning Department along with Downsal services to review this provision during the 2022 annual update for potential Perminate removal along with other Townhouse regulations as Townhouse development is a type of development that city policy says we should be encouraging.
So barriers such as this one may prevent that and the overall intention is to look at Townhouse regulations as a whole.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you for that.
I think the strategic location of this and those urban developing areas is pretty important because of the Affordability issue townhouses and the old adage in Albuquerque [inaudible].
Outdoors and separation between their dwellings.
That's still true to a great extent.
But the Affordability issue has really risen.
And many more people are in the market for a Townhouse.
Less maintenance and some cost savings over having a single family dwelling.
That's what this is about.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Thank you, Mr.
I'm not too good at this stuff when comes to Ido issue.
I'm going to ask a lot of questions in reference to it.
Again, how many townhouses did you say you can line up?
>> the way the Ido contemplates Townhouse is there's two qualifies, there's a minimum of three attached minute and every unit has to have an individual ground floor entrance.
The minimum of three, maximum of infinity.
There's no cap on how many attached units can make a Townhouse.
The distinction between a Townhouse and multifamily development in the Ido is requirement every unit has ground floor entrance.
That's what would give you a visual distinction between a Townhouse and a more traditional looking apartment.
>> Coun . Sanchez: isn't infinity an apartment complex?
I'm trying to wrap my--I can't figure out why'd we have Intinty lined up.
It sounds like an apartment complex to me.
Is that a different portion of the Ido, townhouses verses Intinty apartment Complexs?
>> they are distinct uses and defined differently in the Ido.
A Townhouse is a defined type of low density residential land use and multifamily is the other type of land use that would be a more traditional looking apartment complex that might have exterior or interior rent Entrances Entrances.
>> Coun . Sanchez: but they're still connected to each other like apartments?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, townhouses are connected to each other similar to how apartments are, yes.
>> Coun . Sanchez: I see lot of apartments have two on bottom and two on top and that makes one building and you actually have the whole apartment complex.
I don't know that I'd like to see infinity lined up on one block.
I don't think I've seen that in Albuquerque.
Do we have that in Albuquerque?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, there's several instances of Townhouse development around Albuquerque that are three to maybe eight or nine units connected at most that I'm aware of and the example I was reviewing for this legislation.
I haven't seen Townhouse development go larger than maybe eight eight, nine, or ten units.
Which looks like row House style or Brown stone style.
>> Coun . Sanchez: and is that a row House development?
>> Coun . Sanchez: I'm learning.
I need to understand what I'm voting for.
That's why I'm asking the questions.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, are you house is not--row house is not a defined term.
It's a stylized term used for that type of Townhouse.
>> Coun . Sanchez: and I want to make sure I understand where these can be.
Is it anywhere vacant land or there's certain areas where they're supposed to be?
If you give me another five seconds my Ido will reopen and I can tell you the zoning districts that Townhouse development is allowed in.
I'll be able to tell you that in just one moment.
>> thank you for your patience.
Townhouse development is a permissive use in the R-T zone district, R-Ml, R-Mh, Mx-T, MX Mx-H.
>> Coun . Sanchez: now since I'm not familiar.
Let's say for example there's an empty lot in the middle or across the street from my house.
And I have residential area.
Can you just pop a row of House right across the street from me?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, if in this example the lot across the street from you has one of the zoning districts I described, Townhouse development would be allowed as permissive use.
It would be dependent upon the zoning of the subject property.
What I'm trying to do is figure out where exactly they would be.
I just need a little bit more information on that as well.
I'm just envisioning a row of houses is like an apartment complex.
And I also wanted to know what land they need to be on.
I'm basic Lae not ready to vote on this.
I'd like to defer so I can get information.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, I had a question that Piggy backs off yours.
If the answer is what I I think it would be it might help.
>> Coun . Bassan: in the staff unless, putting a stay of enforcement while this is not enforced.
I was thinking there's all these town homes throughout Albuquerque.
And this is where it doesn't read that clearly in the legislation but in the staff analysis it specifically says this provision in the Ido is applicable sit a wide, however this stay of enforcement would only impact Townhouse development in urban centers, main street areas, or premium transit areas.
To me, if you can confirm that is true and that's what is written, I think that relieve some of the concern for the potential for an infinite amount of town homes developed on residential block when we're talking about urban centers main street areas.
>> yes, the state of enforcement is specifically only applicable to those urban centers main street and premium transit areas which are defined areas.
Central, Broadway, fourth street, downtown.
The more intensely urban areas.
Those are where the stay of enforcement allows a Townhouse development that was developing an Ar-1 zone district to have more than three units.
>> Coun . Sanchez: I think one of the things is important is we define Intinty Ty Ty Ty Ty--infinity and not have infinity.
I don't know what the perfect number would be.
Infinity seems too much for me.
And I have another question what was the spirit of the individuals who wrote this?
What were they trying to accomplish when it was written?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, I would defer that to the sponsor.
>> Coun . Benton: the-->> Coun . Sanchez: I'm talking about the original not the change.
>> Coun . Benton: the original I think intent of having three, I'm not sure.
That would be someone in the planning Department because it doesn't come from the Council that I know of.
>> Mr. President, I'm sorry I can describe the answer to that.
I thought you were asking about the origin of this resolution.
But the original provision in the Ido that the stay of enforcement is applicable was new in the Ido in 2018.
It was not a carry over from the previous zoning code.
The understanding is when Townhouseses are developing next to an R a zone district, if they're limited to three units at a time that Three-Unit building might be more in scale with the RA and R1 zoning directly next to that once you get into four or more that development directly next to the zone district might not match up.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor, one more aside, in the old zoning code this was not--this is something that was new created in the Ido and myself and the staff caught Off-Guard when we saw it.
Especially in the developing corridors.
I agree about the infinity.
I don't think we want to say that.
I don't think it reads that way.
I think Ms. Schultz about character characterizing that.
That might be something we need to look at.
>> Coun . Sanchez: that's one of the things that concerns me.
Are we going to end up with a massive row of houses in a certain area.
I don't think that's the right thing to do in our city.
I don't mind if there's three or four attached.
It's just my personal opinion.
I think it looks better and is nicer when you have a Bitted of a break up.
It's important to the people that want to live there.
And they take better care of it, to tell you the honest truth.
>> Coun . Benton: any other questions?
Again, this is trying to keep us from completely abandoning a form of development that was allowed in the previous zoning code.
I don't know of any that went Infint.
From a construction point, you wouldn't be able to do that.
Probably from fire code as well.
Other questions, Councilors?
There's a motion and second.
All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
Now we're on our final item.
>> Coun . Lewis: I move a due pass of R-65.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion and second from Councilor Bassan on R-65.
We're going to move forward.
We're going to need another suspension of the rules.
>> we have public comment.
I don't know if you want to do the rules first.
>> Coun . Benton: we do have people signed up for public comment.
Is there a motion to extend the meeting?
There's a motion and to go to 11:30.
There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
First Speaker is Tony followed by Annette.
>> hello, I'm the program director for homeless assistance to end homelessness.
It's misguided to Realkale the money.
Due to the barriers inherent of not having a stable place to live that get in the way of experiencing homelessness having a voice that Img pact them the most.
With a focus of connecting with people experiencing homeless homelessness.
We've collected 600 signatures many of people living on the street.
They overwhelming support the safe outdoor spaces.
We reached out to city Councilors that said they support that since supported the moratorium.
We're thankful that one tonight chose not to override the Mayor's veto.
And safe outdoor spaces are slated to move forward.
If you take away the funding now, safe outdoor spaces will not have a fair chance of being Successple successful.
Please protect the funding.
>> Karen, followed by Rosemary.
>> sorry, I was having difficulty.
Good evening, I speak in opposition to R-22-65.
Currently, there are already a lot of resources available to homeless and precariously housed veterans.
The veteran integration center provides services.
The V.A . Medical center allows Walk-Ins on the VA campus.
Residential recovery program job for veterans and supportive housing vouchers for veterans.
Good will has a program called Sfbs to provide housing employment and supportive services for homeless and precariously housed services.
Heading home has a transitional program for veterans.
These are some of the many resources already funded for homeless VETS.
The Inry is this transfers away from safe outdoor spaces which is what some wartime veterans prefer as transitional over confinement in a shelter or four walled space.
And suggest everybody watch Ken burns Ten-Part documentary on the Vietnam war it's a Priep--funding would be transferred not only from safe outdoor spaces that provide a safe space for veterans but also for all women who live fearfully in outdoor spaces that are not secure and safe.
They feel safer there a than being in a shelter 17 miles west of town.
Mr. President, members of the Council, once again, I still reside in district two.
I'm urging you to oppose the redirection of safe outdoor space potential funds to other purposes as proposed in Councilor Lewis's resolution, R-22-65.
While Councilor Lewis's resolution--excuse my cat is trying to testify.
Proports to assist homeless veterans it ignores the fact that services to all Unhoused persons in Albuquerque will actually better identify veteran INS need of services.
There are many veterans among the Unhoused population in Albuquerque.
But they're rarely clearly identified among those who are being carried from one temporary site to the next by Criminalization of homelessness.
If Unhoused community members are provided with appropriately managed safe outdoor spaces and other alternatives where they can be identified and connected with service providers, the veterans among them are more likely to actually be connected with the services they need and they are entitled to.
I urge you to not pass resolution R-22-65.
Leave the money in safe outdoor spaces and related programs where you're more likely to connect with the veterans.
>> Coun . Davis: it's pad Davis, would you introduce us to your cat.
She was looking over the shoulder and became quite the celebrity.
>> I know my cat is a real media hog.
Her name is band Randy and she loves zoom because she likes to dominate zoom meetings.
>> Coun . Davis: she does it well and appreciate her staying up.
>> you're welcome, Councilor Davis.
>> Mr. President, there's a handful of others signed up to speak but they're no longer in the meeting.
That concludes public comment.
>> Coun . Benton: We're back on the bill.
Any discussions, Councilors?
>> Coun . Bassan: Mr. President, I do have a question related and I guess director I'm glad you're still here.
And perhaps this is going to be something for Mr. Rael because it's going to be interdepartmental related.
With Coronado park we were told there was an estimated $27,000 used every two weeks to clean it among seven departments.
What are we doing with that funding now?
I mean, how is it specifically, what it was costing was to clean Coronado Park, I know and realize the city departments have their work cut out.
If we're allocating them before, now what are we doing?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Bassan, just so we're clear I think we had this conversation sometime ago.
The $27,000 that you all received really was the cost of the individuals that are assigned to each of the departments that go out and do that work once a week.
Those individuals are already paid for and that was part of their job.
To tell you the number was not an accurate number because we used those folks that clean other parks.
They just assumed they want to have the number for that one day.
The number is not nearly that high.
As a matter of fact, I don't remember the number but it was less than $8,000 a day.
Because all those folks are already working for us.
The point being that the money allocated for safe outdoor spaces was to cover the cost.
As Ms. Pierce said of funding of operations and supporting the entities that would be provided the safe outdoor spaces.
We would be contracting with third parties to fund these facilities so it's not the city staff managing the day to day operations of those and giving them to support ensure all of the work around the sites, for example the fencing, that there's support for them to do that work.
>> Coun . Bassan: Thank you for that.
Yet at the same time we were given those numbers by everybody when we asked for them.
We were told $27,000 every two weeks.
I recognize those departments are still doing it.
I'm going to make my vote very simple.
When we were doing the budget this money I was hoping would go to living lots.
Therefore I don't support it anyway.
>> Coun . Benton: any other comments or questions?
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
I just grow tired of the continual roll backs.
We passed safe outdoor spaces and then we put forward a bill that says we should figure out how they're going to work.
And in our Infininate Silliness we didn't pass that bill.
Family and community services saved us and did that work anyway and shared it with us.
And we really appreciate that.
Because we passed safe outdoor spaces and we need to have rules.
Now we tried to roll back safe outdoor spaces and that failed.
Family and community services can't save us again.
We are going to have safe outdoor spaces.
And we might as well have some money to put into them to make them successful.
I just--we continually try to roll back, we continually try to change the budget and Reallocate funds and make political spaces.
Safe outdoor spaces are legal in the city of Albuquerque.
We're going to have them and I would like them to be managed so people are actually safe and security in those safe outdoor spaces.
>> Coun . Grout: Mr. President, thank you.
How did you come up with this number for $750,000?
How much money does each space cost?
>> Council President, Councilor Grout, that 750,000 that Awas approved in the budget is based on the estimate at the time that this could cost up to $150,000 per safe outdoor space.
When we're developing the budget long ago that was our best estimate for a handful of safe outdoor spaces in our community.
>> Coun . Grout: that's a very low number to me to run this property.
I don't see how that is going to happen.
>> Coun . Benton: other discussion--there's a motion and a second for R-65.
Councilor Lewis to close.
>> Coun . Lewis: urge your support.
>> Coun . Benton: all those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
That passes on a 5-4 vote.
Seeing no further business, this
With lots of challenges and barriers and I think we're doing a lot to learn about those and overcome them.
We're really proud about the people we've been able to house by having them here at wellness two.
>> Coun . Bassan: what is the maximum capacity?
>> it's got about 100 beds.
And a little over 100 rooms there that are occupied.
And we you Awill--usually have about 300 people.
>> Coun . Benton: all right, Councilors.
Thank you, director Pierce.
We have a motion and a second for approval of the contract extension for the wellness two hotel.
All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
We're going to move the agenda to other business.
And this is Ec126 which is the veto by the Mayor of R-22-56 establishing a moratorium of safe out door spaces.
If a Councilor wishes to attempt an override of the veto they will make a motion to override.
If no motion is made or the second is not received the veto stands.
If the motion is made and six votes are not obtained the veto stands.
Is there a motion to E--override?
>> Coun . Lewis: I realize this is completely your discretion.
I make a request that normally this is originally put on the end of the agenda and normally the motion like this would be--and there's some other important things on this agenda I'd like to see.
I know there's people waiting on--if we deal with this first it's going to be a good while.
I think there's a hearing tonight.
So, again I realize it's our discretion I just make a request we move this to the end of the meeting.
>> Coun . Benton: I appreciate the concern, Councilor.
I'd rather dispense with it at this time.
That would be my decision.
>> Coun . Benton: Mr. President, I make a motion to override the Mayor's veto.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion to override the veto.
Second from Councilor Grout.
Again, Councilors, an affirmative vote will be to override the Mayor's veto.
>> Coun . Bassan: I want to say a few things.
>> Coun . Benton: please.
We actually have the ability for public comment and everything.
There's a motion and a second to override.
Just clarifying how it goes.
There are people signed up to speak.
Let's hear from them and we'll hear from Councilors.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
Our first Speaker is Julia, followed by Loretta.
>> Loretta, followed by Tony.
>> good evening, Councilor Benton, Councilors.
I'm the President of Santa Barbara Martinez town neighborhood Association.
I'm not going to go over again what I've explained the conditions of Martinez town are nearly catastrophic.
Regarding the closing of the Coronado Park, we've had to deal with lot of things regarding the homeless.
And it's because of those types of programs which we consider is being moved to the location in our neighborhood and it will not be changed.
I am urging you to please stop this idea that we have such a safe outdoor space.
I think it's deplorable that we as human beings want a decision to put people in tents.
There is something wrong with society where greedy society when we consider that as a solution.
I'm really asking that you override the Mayor's veto and vote against the safe outdoor spaces.
>> Tony followed by Annette.
>> I'm the program director for homeless assistance.
With the new Mexico coalition to end homelessness.
A coalition of over one thousand people dedicated to ending homelessness.
Please do not override the Mayor's moratorium.
There's not enough space to meet the need of homelessness in Albuquerque.
There's a reason why living in a shelter is not an option.
I've been part of two petition campaigns geared toward hearing from the people regarding policy initiatives that impacts them.
Not one person I spoke to was against safe outdoor spaces.
They should be distributed across the city and not allowed to be developed solely in economically poor communities or communities of color.
I visited the West side shelter and learned about the shortcomings from the people living there.
There's no washing machine to wash clothes, the roof leak and there's a back door that doesn't open properly and is a fire hazard.
This also an old prison that has features that Associates with a prison.
There are good reasons why people don't want to live there.
The capacity is about 600.
We have 2,000 people in central intake waiting to be housed and the average length of time to become housed at the onset of homelessness.
Even if you count the shelters, and the Gateway center, you don't have the cu Apacity capacity.
We need safe outdoor spaces.
>> Annete followed by John.
>> thank you, Mr. President, I vote to override the veto.
This has happened about a year ago and another thing that happened a year ago was open borders.
Let's address the elephant in the room and we're in a crisis mode.
We're a border state and sanctuary state.
We have more of crime, we have the number one drug bust just recently.
I don't think creating a tent city or safe spaces is going to be feasible.
Are these people coming over the border?
Yes, they are, because I've talked to them on the streets.
We have women and children pan handling and their has on the other corner and he's--I'm like Why don't you get a job, they could barely speak English because Tlar from other countries.
Let's address it as we should.
And thank you Councilor Sanchez for bringing up that this is a crime issue and it's not a housing.
It's our first amendment right.
And that's what we should be focusing on instead of donating $250,000 to planned Parentred.
Let's see if we can use that money to secure borders and build the wall.
>> John followed by Nani.
>> Coun . Davis: Mr. President, they're not here at the moment.
If we can move NEM to the--move them to the end.
>> thank you, Mr. President, Councilor Davis.
Geraldo followed by Rebecca.
Mr. President, city council members.
Although I'm a retired city employee, I understand.
But being retired, it's hard to enjoy the quality of life when you see all this happening in our culture.
With that said, I am an American Filipino.
First generation residing in Albuquerque since 1980.
Since 1980 homelessness for over 40 years.
From time to time I had great opportunity to serve and feed the homeless in the community.
As your constituent and concern citizen, I encourage to override the Mayor's veto.
Establishing a moratorium for safe outdoor spaces for three simple reasons.
Accord to the Stats at least 70% of homeless for mental illness which promotes criminal acts.
Secondly, imagine having your own business and insurance and facilities would you want homeless camps on your property?
Imagine owning your own home, would you want homeless camps in your property?
I do have empathy and sympathy.
I would hope that you would override the Mayor's veto.
>> Coun . Pe} a: unrelated to the comments that this gentleman made, I ask him from use refrain from using the word retarded.
>> Rebecca followed by Herbert.
>> good evening, president, Councilors.
I am a resident who is concerned about our community as well as the city's fiscal responsibility.
My has and I owned a small business in Albuquerque for over 30 years.
And during those 30 years, we've learned a few things about projects and planning.
Not every project we plan was successful.
However, we did learn that no project was successful unless we planned adequately and executed it adequately.
We were always guaranteed sure Unsuccess when we didn't plan well and/or we didn't execute well.
And execution means following through with those plans and even Tweaking some things that didn't work in the process.
Success only comes from proper planning and from proper execution.
Proper execution is being steadfast and carefully following the thought out plan and also willing, like I said, to Tweak anything that wasn't working to accomplish the success.
Instead of instigating another project, merely for the fact of doing something, how about we commit to following through with the projects that are already Instigated like the wellness hotel, Gateway center, all of those that we can make succeed.
Please override the veto.
>> Herbert, followed by Diane.
>> good evening, Council President, Councilors, how are you doing?
I have to say hello to everybody.
I've been living in Albuquerque since 1960 at ten years old.
I went to Vietnam came back and joined the fire Department and retired from the fire Department.
Before I retired I'm a founder of a program called mission request located at 1314 Gibson.
Started as an old gas station and we got a metal building donated by Intel.
Some may say it was unattractive.
But we served the people.
And we served homeless people.
And we gave a positive quality of life to everyone in the area.
We have a lot of problems in our neighborhood.
We sympathize with the police Department being short of staff.
To get someone out at our already existing problems, gangs, drugs, homelessness from our own people living in the park.
We've been in existence in our neighborhood before we had a Mayor.
The city council always made decision.
I urge your support to veto the Mayor's request.
I hope my buddy Lawrence relates to it to the Mayor we don't want a camp in the area because of the existing problem.
If that exists it makes our problems worse.
I urge your support to veto that request.
>> Diane, followed by Bruce.
And I live in the Kirkland addition.
The reason I'm here is because I heard they're trying to get a homeless camp in our area.
I'm a senior citizen and there's a lot of senior citizens over there and young families over there.
There's lot of--I'm a home care giver and I travel around taking care of elderly people.
What I've learned is that the homelessness, they have no respect for anybody else's property.
I don't think it's fair and I want to say my piece that I want a veto too.
I want it to be vetoed too because of that.
>> Coun . Benton: please no applause.
>> Council President, Council, I had a good speech I was got set forward, after listening to everybody else.
I don't have a big speech.
All I ask is Wheres your compassion.
I hear people talk about the homeless.
We hear about the crisis of homeless and people getting kicked out of their homes because of rent.
And we have this space and this space and some somebody on the West side.
My problem is we want to come up with a solution that's a one size fits all.
We're fighting to say we have to do this and not do this.
Why wasn't do--why can't we do it all.
I want you to veto safe outdoor spaces.
People say things it's going to criminalize it.
Look, we have the same issue among our homeless community that we have in our society.
There's an element of criminals in that just like in our society.
The percentage is the same.
Stop trying to put the homeless in a criminal box.
Because when we do that it makes us look at them differently.
And when you look at them differently you can put them in places where they can be out of sight out of mind.
I don't know what the solution is, but I urge you not to veto this because you don't know if it will work because you have not tried it.
We need to try all things as we talked about.
We talked about the hotels are already full.
By the time it takes fill those up we need everybody to do what they can to make sure it works.
>> Michael followed by Karen on zoom.
>> as taxpayers we have footed the bill for services including the Gateway center, free bus service, medical services to have yet to yield any results.
There are substantial services for people that desire to change their situation.
It's time to realize that people don't want to change unless they're forced to.
This became evident with the closing of Coronado park.
It made people start using services Vaibl and forced them to make tough life decisions.
I think today we need to stand up to the Mayor and homeless and say enough is enough.
Put the onus on the individual and personal choice and it's time they take responsibility for the choices they make.
That's all I have to say.
>> we'll move to speakers on zoom.
First is Karen followed by Reverend Bob.
>> good evening, Councilors.
First I want to advocate for the opening soon an of a safe outdoor parking space with sanitation facilities provided for people living in their vehicles at the Gateway center at one of the parking lots.
This could be restricted to women and elderly individuals who are most Vulnerables as well as families that can't get into the motel.
You passed the zoning change to allow safe outdoor spaces in Non-Residential areas of the city.
Please do not back pedal by imposing a one year mor Tor Atorium moratorium.
Director Holguin know what to do to set up safe outdoor spaces, provide sanitation, provide on-site security.
Limit the number of spaces for tents or vehicles.
Provide secure storage of residents belongings, partner with health care and service providers to come to the site and meet regularly with the people staying there.
That's what providing resources really means.
It can't be done under the status quo.
The support infrastructure already exists just not a safe and stable place for people to be.
I know because I volunteer at the Frances house.
Why wait a year to enact a zoning change you voted for?
Why wait through another cold fall and sometimes bitterly cold winter?
>> Reverend Bob followed by Rosemary.
>> I'm the associate minter of first Unitarian Church of Albuquerque.
It's at the corner of Carlisle Boulevard and Comanche.
I want to talk about two Encampments.
The first sprang up on an empty lot on the other side of the church I serve.
A dozen tents went up and I talked to them a mix of men and women and dogs.
They knew they would get pushed out eventually but they took what little respite they could have there one day at a time.
This is an Unsanctioned encampment.
The there was Vandalization of the church.
Although that happens whether or not there's a camp.
Eventually they were cleared out and who knows where they went.
Probably another encampment.
The second encampment is on our side of the fence on church property.
It's the encampment that I've implied the city to be opened.
If it's approved they will be screened and showers and Bthrooms and people staying there will be safe and have access to measures and be held accountability for their actions.
My question is which kind of encampment do you want in the city?
And the choice no Encampments is not an answer.
We cannot live that making camps illegal will make them go away.
I ask you, give safe outdoor spaces a chance.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you, Reverend.
I have a quick question for you.
Thank you for your question to us.
Is what you're proposing in your church parking lot or property, does it resemble what was going on at Coronado park?
That's what we're hearing.
The city is trying to create another Coronado park elsewhere in the city.
>> I can't tell who is talking?
I can't tell who is asking me the question.
Anyway, it will have nothing to do with Coronado park.
There will be trash pick up.
Also the encampment I'm proposing is folks living in their cars.
It goes from 7 at night to 7 A.M.
We'll have all these services that keep folks from doing the things that make those kinds of Encampments a big problem.
I understand the frustration with that.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you, Reverend.
>> this is the same reminder that I gave the last time.
I believe the facts that were being discussed were related to a pending application for safe outdoor spaces.
It's one of those things that we're not going to be perfect on keeping the record straight.
I urge the Speaker to the extent that you're planning to or have a specific application or site in mind to please address the general policy of the moratorium as opposed to specifics of the particular site in order to preserve all of the due process obligations that the Council will owe in the event of an appeal.
>> Coun . Benton: I have no idea where this church or this encampment is so I think it's a legitimate question but we'll move on.
>> rose Mary followed by Peggy.
>> hello members of the Council.
I reside in district two and I attend Albuquerque friends meeting also in district two.
I'm asking you please do not override the veto of resolution R-22-56.
The weren't way Albuquerque deals with Unhoused community members simply isn't working.
Criminalization of homelessness is not only cruel and violation of widely recognized human rights Standereds it's ineffective expensive and not sustainable.
Work with the city administration on at Lee a few pilot efforts to address the needs of homeless community.
How will we find answers if we tie our own hands?
Albuquerque faces a massive problem of Unhoused and marginally housed community members.
However trying to drive Unhoused persons off the streets and into shelters is not working.
And I believe is making a bad situation worse.
As Mayor Keller stated in his veto message, cities need the flexibility and availability of a wide range of options to be able to match the wide range of situations we find in our unsheltered population.
That is high I'm asking the city to work with the current Ido language to find some real solutions for the crisis of homelessness in the city.
Criminalization of homelessness is required--recognized throughout the world is a violation of basic human rights.
A report of UN committee of elimination of racial discrimination this past month noted.
>> thank you, your time is up.
Peggy, followed by Sarah.
>> good evening, Councilors, again.
I must direct your attention to the fact that this is a Subitantive issue.
The Ido does not have the capacity to amend properly in regard to these issues.
You're making a mess out of our zone code.
I really am on the fence with moratorium.
I can't call for a Yes vote or no vote.
I see the need and I understand the disparity that happens in regard to trying to put people together that don't really belong together in a Tented camp.
If you read Councilor Lewis's statement, he makes a lot of sense.
He makes absolute sense out of the mess that you have created.
Take time, stop the planning, until you have a full master plan in place for dealing with the problem and finding the right solution for our city.
We need voucher systems that work.
We need affordable housing that is expanding not limited.
We need a variety of tools but this one with the oversight, if you went to the West side shelter, I see your tour was delayed.
Probably to pass these issues forward.
If you have seen the West side shelter, you will see that we are not doing justice for these people.
They are living in a dilapidated Hellhole.
>> Sarah, followed by Rene .>> good evening, Councilors.
I'm speaking on behalf of the board of directors of the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce.
We want restate our testimony on how we should fight homelessness.
We believe our city should be Compagsz compassionate and helpful for those people facing homelessness.
Those who want help and will take help should get help.
We have to oppose any policy that allows or encourage our city to be used as a campground.
We don't believe safe outdoor spaces will remain safe or small for long.
We believe the proliferation of homeless camps however constituted will not make our streets safer.
It will hurt effort to attract visitors, residents and employers alike.
I encourage the counsel to do whatever it can.
To offer more overnight shelters, and also Co-Locate and coordinate services.
Medical attention, Detox, I.D.
Recovery, connection to transitional housing, in other words real help that leads to long term stability.
We urge your support for the moratorium.
>> Coun . Benton: I have a question for the last Speaker.
>> Coun . Benton: so, the Chamber of Commerce was a big Organizer of a trip to San Antonio a few years back where we saw their facility.
I don't know if you were part of that.
Really took a leading role in that.
I know the Keller administration's Gateway center was influenced by that trip.
And a lot of people, myself included went along to see what was being done in San Antonio.
Has the Chamber gone to Denver to see the safe outdoor spaces that are being operated there?
>> Coun . Benton: I really encourage you do that before you speak out against them.
Because I don't think you're really getting the picture.
I really disagree with the distortions being put forth about what we're talking about.
Just wanted to make that comment and be sure that I didn't Misspeak by saying you have not gone to see what's being done in Denver with the two outdoor spaces there.
And they were organized by people who used to live on the street and made a presentation to this Council.
>> Rene followed by Linda.
>> good evening, I'm with the West side.
I am providing some comments based on my own observation and being involved in the Ido amendment.
This is an Ido amendment.
It just recently came up this last summer and there's still a lot of questions ability the tent encampment.
A lot of people do not feel supportive of the safe outdoor spaces because there's a lot of questions about them and how they're going to deal with some of the more problematic issues with the drug issues and the mental health.
Therefore, I don't--I think we need to maintain the moratorium right now and not move forward with the safe outdoor space.
I recommend that campus model that you just mentioned, Councilor Benton, called haven for hope in San Antonio.
It does address a lot of different types of homelessness and services and all in one spot.
The Youtube videos I've seen I'm impressed with what I've seen.
I think there's a group in town trying to do a Gabriel Vilening similar to that model.
I think we need to look at that.
But in the meantime, we do have a West side shelter.
And I did go to the West side shelter last week.
And I was impressed with that we have a shelter that has heating and cooler and Dorm rooms.
>> thank you, your time is up.
>> Linda followed by John.
>> yes, let's see if I can--yes, I appreciate being able to speak in front of the Councilors this evening.
I am speaking as a private citizen from district nine.
I'm a retired physician and I'm working as a hospital chaplain.
I have Interacted with many people who are homeless in a variety of capacities.
And I would just like to emphasize first of all that these individuals are fellow human beings.
And they need to be treated with compassion.
I was bothered by the person that said housing is not a right.
And in a country this wealthy we have people that cannot afford to be sheltered and have housing is a shame.
I would like to say also that the road to becoming homeless is multi Multifactorial.
And the road out of homelessness is also Multifactorial.
There are multiple different answers.
And one of them I Strungly encourage is the safe Encampments.
The reason I encourage that is because I believe it's the first step that proceeds the other steps we already have in place in the city.
>> thank you, your time is up.
>> good evening, Councilors.
I'm not going to mention a specific place.
Councilor Bassan, last time you directed staff to talk to us.
We still can't find anyone.
We called, we've employed attorneys, we've tried everything we can.
We've got a 62-Year business that struggled through Thepan and all we're trying to do is get information because everything we're reading is it's going to be 62 years and we're out of here.
The shared parking lot we have with a place the shelter is going to be disappears and it's just--I don't know how this can happen.
There's no due process for us.
This business that's been here a long time.
My personal beliefs are that we--I love the idea of safe spaces.
I remind our Secretary of interior was living in her car homeless.
I think this is a good idea.
I think it's a bad plan at some of the places it's going to be put.
I hate to say this, but I ask that you override the Mayor's veto just to give us time to figure out what's going on.
Please don't close our doors.
>> Coun . Davis: Mr. Rael, if I can asking, I know I asked you to meet with Mr. Hendry.
And help identify some of the concerns of what that property is he's speaking about.
Was your administration able to get them enough information for them to weigh in or participate or understand that process?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Davis, I'm aware that Mr. Barela reached out.
I will follow up immediately after this.
At our break, to make sure we do get with him.
>> Coun . Davis: I know you know each other and it would be helpful to get them what they need.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Bassan.
>> Coun . Bassan: Thank you, Mr.
I know director Barela is here.
That might be a way to Expedeiate the process of communication and infer--information sharing.
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak.
I live here in Albuquerque in the South valley.
Pursuing a career in health science.
We're invested in this community.
Yurbg in film and I spend time feeding film crews.
We film downtown around the different areas where there's homeless people.
I've been able to see a lot of what's going on.
My heart really breaks for them.
They come up and for us to feed them.
I've seen children living in tents.
That really breaks my heart.
I think what you're trying to do with creating safe Spaceicize--spaces is incredible.
And I applaud you for doing something for the awful situation.
I implore you to take time and think about how you're doing this.
I came here the last meeting and I heard testimony about different situations at different areas that you're wanting to put Encampments in.
There just seems to be a lot that needs to be thought out.
I think we need to do more for homeless people and think about the needs they have and make sure that we're providing them with what they need.
I think this is not fully thought out and I think that we need to spend more time making sure they get the things they need and not just put something together really quick.
Because they're really suffering.
I implore that your override the Mayor's veto and spend more time on this.
>> Mr. President, that concludes public comment.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
We're back to the Council.
Councilors, any discussion?
>> Coun . Davis: Mr. President, I'll make this fairly brief.
Director Pierce shared with the city council yesterday a set of guidelines basically an application or rules and regulations that the city was in intended to impose or distributed.
That helped to address some of the concerns that we've heard for six weeks from the communities and neighbors and others that said this seems like an unplanned, rushed consideration that--and I think neighbors are right in the regard we have not shared enough information about how it addresses neighborhood issues.
Director, if you don't mind, I'm going to ask you to do 30 seconds or less.
Some of the things that stood out that I learned from the city guide's lines for operations that I had not heard until yesterday in public.
And I hope we're sharing those with members of the media no matter how tonight goes.
And I want to call a couple out that address concerns tonight.
And I hope you give us a run down of the top lines.
For example, although the city council initially passed these and for some Unforeseeable reason decided not to pass the bill requiring you to create rules you did it anyway.
So they're not chaotic and nobody taking over a new parking lot.
The things I saw that were addressing concerns were a mandatory fence with a cover.
There's some separation for the people indoors.
I saw for example that there were Curfew hours.
Something that looked like dawn to dusk.
I recall 8 at night to 7 A.M.
The city will screen residents.
People can't come and go.
They have to apply for the city and they're screened and matched to a location with the services and whatever types they need instead of just showing up one day.
I also noticed that they have to participate.
They have to--it's exactly what I remember from camp hope.
You have to do work around here to pay rent.
Which is helping to clean up.
To take up jobs and chores to contribute.
You have to participate in weekly meetings with providers and the city.
There were lot of things that I saw in that that have never heard talked about in all this time that address some of the concerns that these won't be for lack of a better term mini Coronado parks all over the city.
They're structured and well done done.
How did you come up with these?
What's the response been from the providers?
And what input was provided by neighbors to address some of the concerns?
>> Council President, Councilor Davis, thank you for that question.
I sent out those guidelines and I applaud the city council when you asked about those early on.
It's the right thing for the Department to do on any new initiative.
We posted those on the Website soon after the Ido amendment.
And these were developed by working with camp hope getting a copy of what they've done.
They had a successful camp for the last ten years and also Speaker from the Colorado collaborative that came to speak to many of you early spring.
We developed this based on that.
And yes, this does address many of the concerns that it is not a walk-up facility.
People have to sign an agreement.
It is not just come and go.
There are rules that are associated with this.
So you know who is in there and you need a roster for safety reasons.
I'll go ahead and add that also 100% of people who are in a safe outdoor space must be engaged with a case manager.
As we move forward and reset we'll have benchmarks of who receives services.
What percent of people need help re relocating for reasons of family or to avoid persecution.
We'll also track the concern that we have heard from neighbors.
What will happen if there's chaos.
We're going to track how many APD calls are associated with this.
That's something Colorado did.
They had minimal to none APD calls.
We have set benchmarks hearing the concerns from neighbors and the conversations they've had.
>> Coun . Davis: my last question for the director.
One of the things I'm sure Councilor Sanchez can speak for himself, one of the things he's been Adimate, I've heard from Councilor Sanchez and others, what do we do with people with warrants?
How do we not create a criminal safe space, for lack of a better term?
I saw it's explicit and they have to sign the agreement that they understand persons with open warrants will be turned over to APD.
They cannot participate in crimes or have weapons they cannot consume alcohol or drugs on-site.
They can't trade alcohol or drugs for things.
I feel like some of these rules as long as the city is enforcing them, and I like the city is setting up a designated time to meet with everybody and visit.
It seems we've addressed some of the security concerns.
Particularly for neighborhoods that haven't worked with these before.
I applaud the administration.
I don't think this is exactly the right answer.
I think somewhere between the unstructured status of Coronado and what we heard from partners and friends in Denver was the Overstructure of those.
I think you struck a balance and I like the idea that the administration can do this through rule making and in practice so we can modify this on a site by site basis and weekly basis to work on that.
I feel better that the people in my community who are neighbors to these or are going to be seeing these have had some of the concerns addressed.
And I don't believe we've done a good enough job of how we're going to do his.
I think we can do a good job communicating that going forward.
For that reason, I'll vote no.
So we can maintain the safe outdoor spaces.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Lewis.
>> Coun . Lewis: Thank you, Mr.
We've had such a long discussion about this.
I've listed a lot of research and had lot of discussion of why I think there's a better way than these so-called safe outdoor spaces.
I want to mention Denver because I've done research on Denver and what they're doing.
There's 370 people that live in tent Encampments in the city of Denver.
The city of Denver spends 6 $6 million for that program.
It's about $33,000 per year per tent which means that Denver could take that money, and they could actually buy two bedroom apartments in the city of Denver and put two people up per apartment for the amount of money for a year for what they spend per year on the 370 tents they spend on.
With the amount of money they spend on safe outdoor spaces per person they can put two people in an apartment with running water and beds.
There's more homelessness in Denver than ever before.
Safe outdoor spaces in Denver is not compassionate.
They could spend the same amount of money and really be able to help people.
I think that's where we're headed.
If we're going to do this, I want to mention that the West side coalition of neighborhood associations that represent all the neighborhoods in my district are against safe outdoor spaces.
And I'm also encouraged by the Gateway.
And the Mayor announcing about a thousand people to be able to serve there.
I think those are--taxpayers agree those are better ways to be able to really help people.
Among many, many other things I wanted to point out those that relevant to this topic tonight.
>> Coun . Benton: I'd like to respond, Councilor Lewis.
By asking our friends from family and community services to come up.
We were together on that trip I mentioned in September.
There were folks from the county also on that trip.
There were 12 of us there.
It didn't seem to compute from what I heard from Councilor Lewis.
>> thank you, Councilor Benton.
I will say thank you, Councilor Lewis.
We're very excited about Gateway and what's right around the corner.
What we're really looking for safe outdoor spaces is budget of $125,000 to $150,000 per 40 to 50 people.
That's consistent with what camp hope does.
I'm not sure where the 6 $6 million is coming from.
I think the cost per person is a really good figure to look at.
We think this budget is far less than that.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
>> Coun . Lewis: Mr. President.
That 6 $6 million is in the Denver post, February 7, 2022.
Additional 3.9 $3.9 million they were spending about over 6 $6 million.
In the Denver post, just Pakly Ly Ly--reporting on the city council meeting and the budget.
The article States 370 tents.
A downtown apartment in the city of Denver, maybe $1500 a month.
That's going to provide for a two bedroom apartment for an entire year.
We're talking lot about Denver, we're touting how great it is, there's more homelessness in Denver than ever before since they had this safe outdoor spaces.
That is a fact the amount of money they're spending per person.
If we're going to spend less it's probably not going to be as successful as what you think Denver is.
>> Coun . Benton: the amount appropriated, correct?
That was action of the Denver city council?
It doesn't say anything about what we're describing.
>> Coun . Lewis: we can ignore the fact.
>> Coun . Benton: I'm reading the headline and looking over the shoulder.
Says that was the recent action that the city council in Denver.
>> Coun . Lewis: they put it in the budget back in February an additional 3.9 $3.9 million.
>> Coun . Benton: director.
>> I'm happy to follow up with the Denver partners to get a little bit more on the budget.
I will say camp hope that we're following as equally, they are part of the state.
They've been in operation for ten years.
Every safe outdoor space I've visited is up passion--compassionate.
But the budget for Las Cruces is less and I can provide that.
We can do a good job with the budget we anticipate for this project.
>> thank you, Councilor Benton, Councilor Lewis, I like to offer a point of clarification.
We do have the budget from Colorado collaborative.
It is significantly less than what you stated.
I think the Council may have appropriated that amount of money because sometimes their Ido process they have to move camps every six months and they lay full electricity in these camps which costs about $50,000 each time.
That may be where some of the budget is allocated to.
That is not the system we'll be using.
>> Coun . Benton: thanks.
>> Coun . Sanchez: I have a question.
I'm under the impression that every single one of our programs currently has rules including tiny houses.
How do you propose to enforce these rules that haven't been enforced in any other programs we have?
>> Councilor Benton, Councilor Sanchez, the rules where we have shelters and rules we follow I can't speak to tiny home village it's County project.
When we have projects with rules rules are followed and when they're broken we address it.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Fiebelkorn.
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
I'm going to do quick research on how much it costs to live in Denver downtown Denver.
I really don't think it matters.
We have folks in our community who are experiencing homelessness for a variety of reasons.
And many of them are not ready to go into a shelter or long-term house.
Some of them might live with companion animals and they can't find place to go.
If you're leaving a domestic violence situation you might not feel comfortable going into a shelter.
If you've been trafficked you might not feel comfortable going into a large shelter.
Veterans with Ptsd might not feel comfortable going into a shelter.
You might just have a job and you might not want to go to the middle of nowhere to sleep at night.
I think we owe it to these folks to give them something that can help them.
Another reason you might not want to go into a shelter is maybe you're a young person and jure--you're scared.
Last city council meeting we heard from Erin, she was an amazing woman who was brave enough to tell the story of being homeless and living out of her car.
And she inspired me, so I'm going to tell you my Sor Tory.
As a teenager I was homeless.
And it was really, really hard.
You get up in the morning before anybody else because you don't want anyone to see you sleeping in your car.
Thankfully I could go into school and steal a shower.
After school, you go to your work.
And then you volunteer to do every job add that work so you can stay as long as possible.
So you can use the bathroom.
Before you go out into the world that night.
And then you go and walk up and down the Aisles of a grocery store or a target to waste time.
Because you don't know where else to go because you're scared.
And then you go and think, all right, where am I going to park tonight.
I was lucky and I had a car.
Where are you going to sleep, where are you going to park.
Where are you going to feel safe?
And what's close to a path bathroom.
Because in the middle of the night when you wake up you're going to need to find one.
You go, lock all your doors are, you cover yourself with the blanket.
And next morning that starts all over again.
I would not be here today as an Albuquerque city Councillor if someone had not helped me.
I really want the city of Albuquerque to help people in our community right now who are experiencing this exact same thing.
I of course will be voting to uphold the Mayor's veto and give these folks a place to go that is safe and secure and where they can potentially move on to a shelter or long-term housing when they're ready.
>> Coun . Benton: any other discussion?
>> Coun . Bassan: if there's no further discussion, Mr.
>> Coun . Benton: proceed.
>> Coun . Bassan: to begin with, I've been holding back some of the comments from all of the earlier conversations.
And now adding this one to the list.
Thank you for your courage to be able to share that.
It's important to recognize that.
Tonight, just tonight alone, we've heard how this is a national problem.
We've heard that housing, rent control, homelessness, crime, behavioral health, drug addiction, are national problems.
We've heard that people feel helpless.
We've heard we're in a Hew Happenitarian crisis.
We've heard we deploy all resources available but that is not enough.
We've heard there's nothing we can do.
So what I'm hearing is that we need help.
We need help in Albuquerque.
We don't want visitors to see the filth on central.
What about everybody that lives here everyday?
We have distortions of what's being talked about here.
I don't think there's distortions so much as we're not listening.
We also heard that we have a plan for safe outdoor spaces now.
Why do we need a plan just for Sach outdoor spaces?
Let's implement that plan at any possible Avenue we.
The sanctioned encampment started as a good idea to me.
The designated for someone to camp legally rather than sprinkled throughout the city.
The city has a moral obligation to do something to help with substance abuse and behavioral health needs.
We do need to create more affordable housing units.
We've funded them in my opinion.
We've funded frankly funded the crap out of them.
But we need to get more of them.
I think all of us agreed to that.
We need Detox, we need respite.
We're working on that we're getting really close.
We need dual Diagnoses treatment.
So people people can get help with all of the above.
We also need to listen to both sides.
Everyone in Albuquerque, especially Ofilate, is asking Wheres our safe outdoor space?
Or cord--Coronado park closed and I commend the administration.
The Mayor quoted in the Journal that Coronado park was the most dangerous place in the state of New Mexico.
I commend that we closed that, if that is how we feel about it.
Before that, they worked hard to flood Coronado park to give services and provide assistance to those who wanted it.
Now we're still playing whack a mole.
We don't have a better solution.
I agree, I I know that I don't have all the answers.
But I want move to the downtown business, and I promise these are relevant to safe outdoor spaces and they're juror main to these.
We have a fund that our tax paying business owners can put money into so we can make sure that they can afford chief's overtime for an already depleted and struggling and really hardworking police Department.
Where does the equity come in that?
We're paying into the tax Fund.
Everybody that does, and now we're saying okay for those of you that can afford more, go ahead and give us more money and we'll make sure you're Prooiz Priortized.
Another quote is downtown had to take this into their own hands.
That's not how police and government and serving and protecting works.
Coronado Mall got rid of the APD Substation and brought in Bcso.
In just a couple weeks the manager of the Mall and sheriff said they reduced crime and had over 100 arrests.
They reduced crime their in their properties by 90%.
I don't know, I didn't see it all happen.
I'm not saying I know all those Stats and I took them myself.
These are things we have to listen to.
Councilor Pe} a, you say all the time and I think it's so true and I agree with you, poverty is not a crime.
It is not a crime to be homeless.
I'm not saying we need to criminalize homelessness.
And we don't need to criminalize the poor.
But we also cannot continue to Legitimize illegal Behaviorseeths behaviors either.
In the last week alone, in our Emails, and they're addressed to every single Councilor.
We heard from the old town winery, crime Stoppers put out the family dollar was threatened with a needle to be robbed.
Yeller Subasked people to leave and they had been giving help help and been trying and when they said it's time to move on we need to have this table for patrons they got attacked.
People are sending us Emails saying they're Self-Policing and begging us for help.
Test strips are being given by the new Mexico Department of health.
I believe it's a great idea to protect people from Overdosing and dying on our streets.
However, that same article quoted that the Department of health said they're giving these test trips to drug dealers.
If we know where drug Keelers--dealers are at.
Why are we not doing something about them instead of making sure what they're selling is pure.
These harm reduction strategies are not what people are asking for.
I'm getting close to the end, I promise.
I had a conversation with somebody I respect very greatly and I'm getting to know more.
That person asked me that maybe in order to support safe outdoor spaces and get my district to get behind it I should ask them what is it you would take to become more comfortable to allow these.
I told that person, I feel like I heard what it would take from much constituents.
I think it would take them feeling safe.
People don't feel safe here.
The administration, APD, city Council, actual business owners, home ENS, residents.
Everyone works hard and we don't feel safe.
We want to be able to go to all of the places and feel okay.
Instead of taking the law into our own hands.
So, taking homelessness out of the equation, Albuquerque is become what I have now decided my own term, I don't know if anybody else came up with it, if you have, I promise I'll give you credit.
I believe Albuquerque is becoming a sanctuary for criminals.
I do not think it can continue.
People do not feel safe and they're pleading with us to help.
They're pleading with us to help help Homeilous less homeless.
I believe we're trying our best, but what we're not doing is recognizing even if every tool in the Toolbox is what we have, maybe there's only a right tool for the job.
Instead of every tool and all of the above, with we real to recognize we don't have an improvement and rather than us continuing I say I'll try to offer solutions.
Let's use some of those positions that we have at APD that we funded we're not going to fill.
We any we're not going to have all of the officers before the end of the fiscal year.
Let's get more PSA, let's get more public service AIDS.
Crime scene specialists so when people call for help we go and take a report instead of saying call 242-Cops and never answer.
Let's ask for help, Albuquerque.
Administration, Council, let's ask for help.
I think the Mayor is on to something with that.
Let's work with judges and defenders.
Let's work with everybody.
Let's work with all of these people.
So, last thing is, since we don't have any improvement that's noticeable.
We're all sitting here, everybody has been saying the same thing.
My reasoning when I say that what is it going to take, why do people want to feel safe, why aren't they for safe outdoor spaces, I think people because they feel so unsafe they actually are losing patience and losing their compassion.
Which the opposite of what everyone here tonight has been talking about.
We're lose compassion as a society.
That's not what we want to do.
We have to feel safe in order to get there.
Instead of adding salt to the wounds and not seeing improvement and ignoring the public, let's listen to them.
And vote to override the Mayor's veto.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion and a second for the override and again, six votes are needed to override the Mayor's veto.
A Yes vote will be to Overvide a vote no will be to uphold the Mayor's veto.
All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
We do have a--I know we're almost an hour over due for dinner break.
I think this will go quickly.
>> Coun . Bassan: Mr. President, O-29 is authorizing the issuance and sale of the city of Albuquerque industrial revenue bonds in the Max misdemeanor to provide funds to finance the renovation and development and improvement and equipping of a facility for renewable energy storage company authorizing the execution and delivery of an indenture lease agreement bond purchase agreement and other documents in connection with the issuance of the bond and the project.
>> Coun . Benton: please conduct your discussion outside the chamber.
There's a motion and second.
Let's hear from our economic development Department.
>> good evening, Councilor Benton, Councilors, thank you.
The opportunity to present this project today, as we heard the energy solutions is requesting an industrial revenue bond in the amount of 95 $95 million.
The company is a utility scale energy storage developer of low-cost battery energy storage.
It improves the electric grid Reliability and helps integrate clean sources of energy.
If we've seen what happened in California over the last day or two it's incredibly timely that we have a company that is wanting to build something that will store energy for when we need it.
The project known as Sandia peak grid is a stand alone storage system.
Approximately 60 to 100 unique jobs will be created during the construction and commissioning of the project.
The company expects the majority of the labor force to be from the local area.
Permanent new jobs for Sandia peak grid will result in high wage full-time positions.
This project represents a major capital investment that improves our energy infrastructure.
I'll pass it to Chris to present the staff unless and additional information on the project.
>> thank you, deputy director.
Council President, Council, this project is a stand alone energy storage system.
The primary Dpoel goal is to bolster energy and infrastructure.
As such, this project shouldn't be considered traditional Job-Creating Irb but an energy infrastructure project.
The parent company of Sandia peak grid owns and operates a growing portfolio of storage project and invests in the most experienced renewable development teams in the United States.
For nearly 20 years they have directly funded the development of more than 20,000 Megawatts of Storj, Sdaegs storage this project is going to be on 6.1 acre site.
That was most recently used as an Rv storage facility.
An energy storage system is an allowable use.
As deputy director said, this doesn't create a lot of permanent jobs.
But the jobs that it does create are High-Pay (Ing and see a significant benefit from the overall economic impact.
The renewable improvement to the infrastructure and the sizable investment.
In addition to having had a new partner in the local industry.
It includes a fiscal impact analysis prepared by the Unm--and the analysis shows this will have a positive economic impact of 7.6 $7.6 million after 20 years.
The tax abatement will be 60%.
This is a qualified project by the state's industrial revenue act.
The project complies with adopted city plans and policies.
Based on the above findings, the staff recommends approval of Irb Irb22-3 as proposed in the project plan and we wanted to note it passed the Albuquerque planning Department Analysisly.
Thank you and we stand for questions.
>> Coun . Bassan: I want to make sure we go ahead and give everyone else a chance to speak.
We have another gentleman here.
And we also have someone on zoom to speak as well.
>> thank you, good evening, Council members.
I'm Eric, I'm the chief development officer at the parent company.
I'm also here with my colleague who is our project manager.
We have 63 storage projects in construction or in development across the U.S. including the Albuquerque area.
I wanted to thank the city Council, the city staff, and economic development office for their analysis and consideration of this Incosteral revenue bond.
The Sandia peak grid project stated it's a planned battery energy storage facility.
It can connect to 100 Megawatts to Pnm Substation and start construction as soon as late next year and operate just before the summer of 2024.
The project benefits include providing Pnm with capacity resource to maintain reliable electric service to the homes and businesses of Albuquerque.
Second, reducing local and state wide emissions.
And storing renewable energy.
And third, providing a significant clean energy infrastructure investment in Uren communities and in contrast to most large scale renewable Projecterize required to be located in rural areas.
It is a unique opportunity for investment.
The Irb is critical to make sure we can make the investment in the city with this project.
And reduce the cost for everyone including Pnm rate payers who already pay high bills.
We thank you for this consideration of the Irb.
I'm available for any questions you have.
>> Coun . Benton: any questions, Councilors?
Mr. best, did you like to speak?
>> yes-->> Mr. best is on zoom, and this is Ian beard available for questions.
>> Coun . Benton: any other questions?
We appreciate everyone's patience.
>> Coun . Bassan: I would like to move Floorplan substitute.
I imagine it's probably because there's pennies being changed with the last minute stuff and it's more technical.
I would like to defer the bond counsel so you feel like it's not just taking my word for it.
>> Mr. President, members of the Council.
The substitute really only makes two changes to the ordinance.
Previously before the Council, the first is the name of the project was changed to Sandia peak grid from--I'm not sure what the previous was.
The only other change is that in section nine of the bond ordinance there's was a blank schedule that schedule has now been completed.
Those are the only two changes to the ordinance that the Council has previously viewed.
>> Coun . Benton: I'll second the motion for the floor sub.
Thank you for the presentation.
Councilor Bassan to close.
>> Coun . Bassan: I urge your support.
>> Coun . Benton: on the floor Suball those in favor say yes.
That passes, we're back on the bill as substituted.
Councilor Bassan to close.
>> Coun . Bassan: I still urge your support.
>> Coun . Benton: all those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
This is adopting a zoning map amendment for approximately 0.67 acre site located at 10035 country cane between golf course and Paradise hills golf course.
And we're going to facilitate a redevelopment.
It's Quasi-Judicial request which requires special procedures to allow the applicant, staff and public the opportunity to speak.
All persons speaking to this matter must be sworn in.
If you will be speaking to this item please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that your testimony today will be true.
Our time Lement limits, introduction by Council staff five minutes, presentation by the applicant ten minutes, presentation by the Protester, ten minutes.
Public comment two minutes each.
Cross examination by the applicant five minutes.
Cross examination by the Protester five minutes.
And rebuttal and closing by the applicant five minutes.
We will now go to that list of Presenters starting with MS.
Thank you for reading the title.
This item is a zone map amendment.
For a subject parcel--let me get my screen sharing.
The subject appropriate is--property is highlighted in yellow.
The zoning for the subject property today is Nr-C which is Nonresidential commercial.
And the requested zone district is residential multifamily low density.
To the South and West and North of the subject site is a golf course zoned Nonresidential commercial.
And to the East is land that is within the unincorporated parts of Bernalillo County and does not have city zoning.
The purpose of the Nonresidential commercial zoning district, the zoning applied on the property today is accommodate medium scale retail, office and institutional uses.
The requested zone generally to residential multifamily low density is to provide low to medium density mouse housing.
One of the types is Townhousing and small scale multifamily development and institutional.
The city council is hearing this under a special provision in the Ido we take required STAT statute that says if there's a zone map amendment before the environmental planning Commission where that body would be the final decision maker if there are 20% of property owners around the subject site a minimum of 20%, they can file a protest test protest.
That kicks the final decision authority up to city council.
Under regular circumstances this decision would not be before this body today.
It would have been decided by the environmental planning Commission.
But the protesters who you will hear has evoked the 20% protest rule that has brought it up to you today.
That turns the Epc decision into recommend recommendation.
They conducted two hearings on the matter.
Instead of a final recommendation, they recommended to the city council.
The first hearing was in February.
The Commission took testimony from both the applicant, Protester and city staff on the facts of the request.
They deferred for one month, came back and heard the request again, heard again from the applicant and from the Protester and from the staff assigned to the case and ultimately did end up recommending approval.
The-->> Coun . Sanchez: I wanted to know if they did or didn't recommend.
>> the planning Commission did recommend approval of the zone map amendment to the city council.
The requirements for>> one person in Opization who is the Protester you will hear from tonight.
There will be a series of presentations after mine.
And after that the Council will have two options to deal with this bill this evening.
I suppose is you can defer, if you wanted to dispose of the bill you can support the zone map amendment request which would be moving approval of the bill.
There are findings in the bill that support that request.
The other option, if you were to reject the zone map amendment request would be to move denial pursuant to alternate findings.
And those Arality Lternate findings would support why it should be Deneed.
With that, I stand for questions.
We have the applicant and Protester who will provide information about the request in much more detail than I did.
I'm happy to stand for questions after their presentations if desired.
>> Coun . Lewis: Mr. President, you explained all the uses of the possible zoning if the zoning were to change.
It was mentioned assisted living, but as you said, they had to list several options or at least one option.
This is residential use but there's a number of residential type uses to this.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Lewis, yes, I'd be happy to do that.
My integrated development ordinance is loading.
Give me about ten seconds and I can Ulup--pull up that table.
The permissive uses in the Rml zone district are going to be a little bit of a lengthy list.
A single family detached dwelling, a cluster development dwell dwelling, cottage development, two-family detached dwelling, Townhouse, multifamily dwelling, assisted living facility or nursing home, community residential facility, small community residential facility large, Councilor Lewis, I heard you ask about the residential categories.
That's all the uses in the residential category.
>> Coun . Lewis: Thank you.
Even though what was mentioned was assisted living, what's allowable would be single family residential Detafrped Ched.
I wanted to make sure that was clear.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, multifamily was also permissive use.
>> Coun . Benton: any questions?
If not, we'll move to the presentation by the applicant.
Good evening, Mr. President, members of the city council.
I'm Jackie Fishman, I'm with planning.
I'm here on behalf of the applicant in the zone change request.
This is our fourth hearing on this--what I consider a straight forward zone map amendment.
The applicant request a down zone from NRC to Rml for a Three-Quarter acre site on country club Lane.
As you heard, they would like to Redevelop in the property and the existing building as assisted living.
Adjacent zoning, city zoning includes NRC Rml and R 1 de.
That's why I recommended Rml because there's other Adaceant to the golf course.
It's adjacent to the Paradise hills and that's multifamily development and single family.
History shows it was part of a larger area Annexed and zoned in 1978.
It was zoned for golf course, 72 Houn--Townhouse.
And the Epc in their findings found that the zone change Furthers numerous goals and policies contained in the comprehensive plan.
I won't go through the list it takes too long.
The Epc also found that the zone change was more advantageous to the community than existing NRC zone by promoting infill, redevelopment of a small vacant building and re-establishing the residential use allowed by the previous zoning and increasing housing choices for Seeners in an area containing city services also in Poxm M proximity to Rml zones.
It makes good planning sense in proximity to other Rml Preefbt previously zoned as Mr2.
Next slide, I'll keep talking.
It shows existing zoning on top and existing land use on the bottom.
The Rml as I keep mentioning is to the northeast that's the Orange color on the top graphic.
And the next slide is an AR Erial view.
It's dominated by low density residential development.
It contains Rml property.
It shows several photos, the top two photos are of the building itself.
The top left is the front of the building it shows where the parking is located.
The top right is the interior courtyard, it's Lushly landscaped.
And the two bottom photos show some site contents.
Next slide shows zoning comparison between NRC and Rml.
The zone change would eliminate many uses allowed in the NRC zone that would be considered Impactful to neighborhoods.
Those include things like car wash, gas station, liquor retail, Cannabis, nicotine, Mortuary, contractor yard, Self- Self-Storage.
There's not very neighborhood friendly uses in the NRC zone.
We usually don't like to see NRC in the middle of residential neighborhood.
The Epc agreed removing the uses would allow residential use and establish neighborhood is more advantageous than an NRC zone.
We believe that the NRC zone is not appropriate for the parcel.
Due to the small size, it's existing two-story build (the location location.
It really believe that allowing seniors to live in residential neighborhoods instead of institutional settings is good for the community and senior's emotional health and good planning practices.
We submitted a petition to adjacent neighbors that support the zone change.
We also created a map to show you where those supporters live.
My next slide shows some site distances it's a little bit hard to see.
The club House bar at the golf course is about 28 feet from the nearest single family residential lot to the West.
However, it's about 97 feet from our building to the East.
So, this was a Turningpoint in the Epc hearing.
And and measured in real time during the hearing, once we did that, I think it changed a lot of opinions on the Epc.
This is a residential neighborhood, it's appropriate to have residential uses.
I showed this at Lups, this is the 1992 site plan amendment.
I wanted to note on this site plan amendment it does label the subject property as existing.
This is a use allowed on this site until the Ido was adopted in 2018.
To conclude, the applicant purchase this with the fuel knowledge of the uses and events of the golf cars and they want to be a good neighbor.
We worked on this since last October.
They believe the property is a good fit for the Assistive living facility and would allow the residents to enjoy being next to the golf course.
The applicants fully understand the activities that are held at the golf course as the residents when they sign a lease.
These aren't people buying a room in the building, they're leasing it.
The Protester is concerned that the use would somehow cause regulatory damage to his business.
We think those fears are overstated.
And also by the way I note that the Rml is not a protected lot in the Ido.
A lot of those restrictions to commercial next to residential wouldn't apply because of the two zoning categories.
Our applicants and one of them is here tonight, they have been willing to make improvements to the build (Ing and property that includes landscaping and higher graded windows to address the concern of the golf course owner that his uses will disturb the residents.
They're willing to do whatever they need to do to get this done.
We had Dr.Dimena at the Lups hearing a few weeks ago.
And we also, a group of us, talked to him yesterday to clear Fay some of the things he said at Lups because the recording was difficult to hear.
I think you'll hear from him.
Very briefly, he testified and repeated yesterday that noise must be persistent and continuous to be a nuisance.
A lot of the fear we heard through all the Epc hearings about the golf carts being gas powered and how loud they were, doctor Dimena said they would be exempt from the noise ordinance pause they're not persistent and continuous.
I think that Dispenses with that concern.
He also confirmed violations of noise ordinance require a complainant that must be Substantiated action is rarely Takeman and when action is taken it's a civil violation.
The attorney for the Protester has testified in other hearing she thought it was a criminal offense.
Dr. din MENA said it's civil offense.
It almost never gets to a court.
And he can explain that if he's still here.
And in the case of assisted facility the complaints would go through the management company.
So he also said it wouldn't be individual people that are calling from their bedroom saying I have a noise issue here.
They would have to go through the management company and the applicant are the management of the facility.
I think those fears are really overstated.
With that, Mr. President, and Council Council, I work your support for the zone change.
We think it helps strengthen the residential character of this neighborhood and allows for a different type of housing that would accommodate senior and permanently remove the Impactful uses from the NRC zone.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
Is it appropriate for Councilors to ask questions at this time?
>> Mr. President, did you say question of the-->> Coun . Benton: I'm asking if questions have any questions for Ms. Fishman.
>> the opposing party will have an opportunity.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Thank you.
You mentioned that one of the reasons recommendation for clients was that--for this change is that the other residents you feel like it would be more ideal for them to have a residential development in that area?
But for the residents that are going to live there, they don't have a residential surrounding there.
The primary business that surrounds this facility is a commercial golf course.
I just find it interesting that the recommendation to change this to a residential building so that because it's ideal I guess for neighborhoods to have residential surroundings rather than commercial, I think I found that interesting.
I don't think that's ideal for this.
Partly because this is a--this golf course is an incredible treasure to that entire area.
I would say hundreds, several thousand homes and families are dependent upon that golf course thriving.
So, I understand the sense of a threat if it was in any way threatened to not be able to operate like it is at this time.
And Thankfully that golf course is thriving right now pause because it hasn't for a long time.
There was a time we thought we lost it.
We lost a lot of residential homes in that area.
And the understanding is that the homes you mentioned that are even closer to the food area and the entertainment area, they sit out in their backyard and enjoy it.
There's been no complaints at all because they appreciate the fact that golf course is thriving and doing really well.
Now we're asking people to move in right in the middle of another commercial area and deal with not just intermittent noise, there's Boxing matches right outside the windows of that facility.
There's concerts and music all evening which is a part of what made that golf course thrive.
That's a part of it, I'd like to you to address that.
Is that a concern of your client that you're changing a zone to put residential area that are right in the heart of some pretty significant commercial--where there's noise it's natural part of the success.
Number two, you mentioned when these zones were changed, part of the reason when these zones were changed in the 50s was that the West side for many, many years has been a lot of residential areas.
A lot of communities that have been built up and the jobs and the commercial services are on the East side.
What we're doing here would be Eeliminating a commercial space, or commercial zoning for the sake of a residential area where everyone has agreed and our planning documents demonstrate that the goal of these areas should be able to provide services and increase the commercial areas of these areas here and not just keep building residential housing where we just stack up more people.
When your client--this is that is a concern of the client that really in those two ways you can see and you can understand why this would seem to be something that would be detrimental to the neighbors including the main neighbor which is the golf course?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Lewis, I'll try to respond to some of those statements.
In 1978--1987 when this area was Annexed the zoning did allow residential on this property.
Not only this property, but golf course and many areas around it.
It only became unable to be developed for residential in 2018 when the Ido was adopted.
This is a Three-Quarter acre site.
You can't get much housing out of this.
It's got an existing building.
We don't have enough facilities for seniors.
I realize it's only one use for Rml zones.
For all Intents and purposes to Redevelop this site, Three-Quarter Saker with existing building for commercial use.
I don't know what they would do.
But what's the difference between somebody staying in a hotel and noise happening around the hotel versus assisted living.
They're renting the space, they don't own the property.
The golf course, I look at it, golf course is an island in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
We keep talking about my client's parcel being an island surrounded by the golf course.
I think if you take a step back and look at it the golf course is surrounded by residential.
And we're just trying to re-establish that residential use where it was allowed before the Ido was adopted.
I don't think this takes away from the golf course.
When somebody assigns their parents to live in assisted living facility, there's disclosure.
People will go there and know that they're next to a golf course.
And my client has had events at the golf course and be completely aware of what's going on there.
I think this makes sense.
Planning staff agreed, Epc agreed.
It's more straightforward than it appears.
>> Coun . Grout: I have a quick question.
How many units are intending to put here?
>> we're thinking it would accommodate around 20 seniors.
>> Coun . Grout: do you think it will impact the traffic at all?
>> no, because, Mr. President, Councilor Grout, the residents of assisted living facility typically don't drive.
The people that work there will drive.
Their visitors will be there.
They're going to have Shuttles and transportation.
We've heard from the Protester and the Epc hearing that they may wander out on to the golf course and hurt themselves.
I don't think that's a realistic portrayal of what happens at assisted living.
>> Coun . Grout: Thank you.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Thank you.
Part of which Councilor Grout did ask.
>> Coun . Sanchez: and how much are the leases?
>> Councilor, I'm not sure we know that answer yet.
I can have the applicant come and speak.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Okay, another question is you said you were going to do somewhat of a re Remodel what you mentioned didn't seem like much OA--of re Remodel.
I'm concerned the value of the area, my sister lives close in this area.
And I know that right now in Paradise hills there's a resurgence.
A lot of people are remodeling houses and hope they continue to gain value on their houses being right next to the golf course.
And 20 people with a very, very small Remodel is not really looking too good for me.
Another question that Councilor Grout touched on was how did the workers enter and exit the facility and are they going to be driving off of a main road or are they going to be driving through the neighborhoods?
I know you're talking about workers how do they get in and out of the facility and how are families going to get in and out of the facility?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, the people will get to the site from--it's West of golf course road.
It's off country club Lane.
There's parking right in front of the facility.
That's how they would get there.
>> Coun . Sanchez: can you show me a picture.
Are they driving through the facility where the actual golf courts are moving?
Or are they coming through the alley way which goes right through the residential House something Ing?
>> if somebody can bring up my slides again.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, this road labelled country club Lane leads right up to the subject parcel.
This Red-Roofed building is the existing building on the applicant's property.
>> Coun . Sanchez: I can't really see what's past the picture you have.
I'm trying to get the idea of what's there.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, once it loads, golf course road is the main road off to the East.
The aerial hasn't loaded.
And folks come through country club Lane up to the subject site which I'm circling with my Surser here.
>> Coun . Sanchez: it's a different access point than the actual golf course?
>> no, Councilor Sanchez, it's the same road that people would take to this facility and the golf course.
There's only one road in.
>> Coun . Sanchez: that's what I thought.
That the building that used to be the small hotel?
>> Yeah, there's a sign on the building that said it was a B & B.
And some people have called it a B & B and some called it a hotel.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Okay, I'm familiar with the building.
>> in terms of Remodel, I'll say a couple words and the applicant would like to speak.
They are planning to do a complete Remodel of the inside of the building.
It is not suitable yet for the purpose of the project.
They are putting a lot of their hard-earned money to fix up the building.
The site is completely fenced, as I showed in one of the photos.
There's a rear yard that is walled off.
It has a nice pond and landscaping.
It's very self-contained.
>> Coun . Sanchez: it actually does feel like you're on the golf course when you're at that facility.
You drive-in as soon as you drive to the left there's several parking Ing Ing spots and they're used by the golf course all the time when they have a big event.
I understand where it's at exactly and if anybody's been to the golf course it's that small building that used to be a small air B & B.
I don't know if that building is big enough to house these people.
It seems small, knowing the facility.
>> thank you, I just want to address Councilor Sanchez's question about the renovation.
We are actually planning a pretty extensive renovation of $800,000 for that facility.
In the past it has been run as an air B & B.
And it has owners unit, kitchen facilities, it's been vacant for the last three years.
So as it stands currently there's really no value added to the community.
And the reason why people can use that for parking currently is because it's vacant.
Our renovation, I think Jackie was trying to address specifically to help with the noise complaint.
It's an extensive renovation, we're doing Ada and we're in closing with an old school motel set up.
So the halls are exterior.
We're enclosing all of that.
That adds an entirely other dimension of noise protection and security for the residents as well.
>> Coun . Benton: any other questions, Councilors?
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
I have two quick questions.
If we don't change the zoning for this property, it can be used as a hotel, motel?
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: okay.
The change would allow us to house 20 people who need assisted living?
>> Coun . Benton: Let's move on.
Is there any other questions at this time.
Let's hear from the Protester.
>> I'm John Bailly, I'm the owner of the Paradise hills golf course.
First, to clarify the question about the parking issue and access into the facility.
As you come off golf course road, you can turn on to country club.
We own country club Lane.
Which we'd love to the city if they like to have it.
But you come up and when you get to those parking spots you're talking about, to get to those parking spots you actually have to drive through our parking lot and use our drive way to get to those parking spots.
Any time they're unloading, delivery Troch RY Y trucks they have to come through our property to get to those parking spots.
We have serious concerns relating to the noise, safety, future construction and shared land issues.
I guess tonight just with limited time we're going to hit on the noise issue.
We purchase the golf course about four ask a half years ago.
At the time of the purchase the golf worst--was a failing business.
This was heading in the same direction as the Rio rancho golf course.
That closure devastated the community.
E we have increased staff from 40 to well over 170.
This is not a Tanoan or ACC or Clannian club.
This is a very busy, noisy commercial setting.
All the day to day activities include more than 40,000 golfers a year, 13,000 golf court Rentales and a well over $100 10 100,000 people visiting.
We have outdoor live Muzic three days a week.
We have weddings, celebrations, and those events will have live music.
We also have numerous golf tournaments throughout the year that have 150 to 200 people gathering next to the subject property.
The golf course are very intertwined and close to each other.
It's right in the heart of Noise-Making activities of the golf course.
I have Video and pictures that give you idea of how close it would be.
These videos and pictures were taken last Thursday during a fund-raiser golf tournament for the Hispano Chamber of Comers S.
This goes through the bar and grill and to the driving range.
And you'll see it's right in the heart of the golfing and day to day activity.
[Video playing with indistinguishable Audio].
>> the next Video shows unofficial noise level reading at the Northwest corner.
And it shows how close our golfing activities are to the it.
[Video playing with muffled Audio].
>> that's how close it is to the golf course ask in--and the noisy activities going on.
Could you put up picture number one?
This is the picture where you'll see our Proshop on the left.
You'll see the Inn in the distance.
We have approximately 200 people.
I think this is about 8 o'clock in the morning.
This is a picture with golf carts lined up.
You see the cart path that is going to have our 40,000 golfers, 13,000 golf carts a year driving down this cart path right outside the doors and windows.
I guess I'm going to have to pass my time up.
>> I'm a real estate land use partner.
I represent him and his business.
This application is pretty simple.
As long as you completely ignore my client's property.
The Ido criteria says you can do that.
It says the exact opposite.
The Epc said no findings of impact.
That's Becausether confused.
They didn't know if they can consider the noise in evaluating the zone change.
And they were confused with picture of distances presented at the end of the hearing about which is closer to the Inn or neighbors to the West.
It ignores the fact that all of the noise is not located at the end of the building that's not having an entrance.
All of the outdoor noise is centrally located.
The building tilt along that side and there's trees.
Golf cart path that goes around the building.
The Ido has a list of criteria for granting a zone change.
The current zoning should be presumed correct unless the applicant proved, apologies, that they met all of the requirements to the zone change.
It's not one or two or majority it's every single one.
You'll NOTE we responded to a Lut--lot of criteria with presentations to Epc.
Among nose--they should have satisfied the Albuquerque Commons.
>> at its heart my client's concern is that the Rml zoning which allows elementary school and middle school in addition to single family and multifamily housing on this project is simply incompatible with the property and harms this property section 6-7-G3 one of the criteria for zone change says it's the applicant's burden to prove there is no damage to the adjacent property.
Therefore the zone change must me denied.
The properties have the same zone.
Non-Residential commercial.
This is consistent with what the use was before the Ido and what happened since 2017 in that adoption.
If the zone change is granted you'll have two zones next to each other that have different intensities.
There's going to be new regulations on the property and it's amazing how--that's where the burden goes.
One of the first ones is the landscape ordinance.
You have an ordinance required addition additional landscaping buffer.
Right now that's not necessary.
Because they're the same zone.
As soon as you become Rml in particular, there is requirement for 20-Foot buffer and that has to have trees.
Maybe bushes and walls, but maybe tree.
You saw what it look likes.
I don't know if you want to put trees right next to concrete.
My client is not going to be able to do that.
It's going to be a lot of money and time spent before you able to concede that you can start your project.
The good news is it only gets triggered in certain circumstances.
So they said no big deal you shouldn't freak out about that, but my client is already planning a project that will trigger it.
My client already put in 2 $2 million.
Let's talk about the noise ordinance.
You saw my client put the screen shot up with 65, 70 reading.
The commercial reading maximum is 70.
He's operating above residential.
It's legal now and will be illegal as soon as this come.
Mr. Dimena testified that we work with them.
And we don't think there will be problems but the issue it's not my burden to prove that they definitely occur.
It's them to prove that it does not have harm to adjacent property.
If you think my client has a rational concern and the record shows he does the zoning criteria requires you to deny the zone change.
I San Franciscoed .>> Coun . Benton: any questions for the Protester?
>> Coun . Sanchez: I have a question.
Mr. BAYLY, I know the area very well.
I grew up on the West side.
I've been on the West side my whole life.
I know the amount of golfers you have up there.
And I know how close it is.
My biggest concern is the safety for the individuals that are actually going to be living there based on when you decide you want to grow.
When you decide to grow you're going to have an issue with getting in and out.
Right now, it's almost one vehicle in and one comes out.
If something happens or there's a medical emergency in that situation or in that assisted.
>> Coun . Sanchez: and the noise, the fact that you're going to be growing, the fact that it turns your noise ordinance that you--you legal the minute they open the facility.
I tend to think that my biggest issue is the safety issue of the seniors that are there and I think we can find a better place for the seniors to be instead of right next to extremely busy golf course that's growing and growing.
That's just my personal thing.
I think we need to look as city Councillors look for the safety of the folks that are going to be living in this facility.
I honestly think that later on there's going to be a lot more conflict between both entities as time goes on.
Based on what we're hearing right now and I think that since we're here early on, the reasonable thing to do is to help these folks find another area to put their 20 people that is very, very important but I also think there's a safety issue.
And also a continued issue of disagreement throughout the years is going to happen in this facility.
>> I really think we're just seeing with the limited time we're seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Just putting assisted living facility in the middle of a very busy commercial environment and the access just up country club Lane can get severely congested at times.
We're very concerned with the safety of the people.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Mr. President, I also want today make one last comment.
We already have two entities in disagreement.
And this is going to not end here.
It's going to continue to be a disagreement and it will continue to go on.
How many of us want to fight with our neighbor?
That's my biggest issue in reference to this zone change.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Lewis.
>> Coun . Lewis: Thank you, Mr.
There's a lot of activity during the day time.
And there's also activity in the evening.
And we have other locations that are similar to yours that are near Cottonwood Mall and I get complaints that are half a mile away from them.
It sounds like the Nightlife at this golf course, which I've never seen it like that before, but it's great to see people taking advantage of the services and the restaurant and another place to be able to socialize.
Those kinds of places I know are extremely valuable on the West side.
Yet, you all have the houses on that golf courses that are pretty close to you.
I've not heard any, how is the relationship between the golf course and the existing residents that are on the course?
>> we get comments on a regular basis how much people appreciate the work we're doing and the renovations we've done and how we've saved the Combaufl course.
And we've saved the property values because the golf course was going.
We get compliments on a regular basis.
>> Coun . Lewis: so this used to be a bed and breakfast.
And imagine it complimented the golf course in many ways and there's weddings held on this specific facility.
People that come to the golf course stay at the bed and breakfast that would take advantage of the other services and many times it was a destination for the golf course and surrounding area.
It's a commercial facility.
And I want to mention the existing parking for that facility.
My understanding is that the golf course owns most of the parking for that facility?
>> we do not own--there's 15 parking spaces.
Just past where the line stops, that is our drive way coming in.
For them to access their parking spot they have to drive through our property to get to those parking spots.
My concern is with an assisted living facility they're going to be providing meals, we calculated 800 meals a week.
You're going to have delivery vehicles and semi, because we have them delivering our food.
We don't see where they're going to park or turn around or unload.
We don't see the parking and the area outside for the delivery vehicles and people that are going to have coming in and out of the facility.
>> Coun . Lewis: you have a large tent right in the center of the entertainment area.
I think I'd imagine 20 feet or yards in walking distance to the first resident that would be in that area.
Could you imagine with the current entertainment and the Nightlife you have there now someone sleeping in that window right there and in that area that's so close to where that area is?
I'm having a hard time understanding if that's possible to have quality of life at 9 o'clock on a Friday that would be that close as their residence.
>> and you saw the golf carts lined up, and that was a tournament, this week we're having a tournament this Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
You're going to see golf carts lined up and it's going to be a noisy environment four days in a row.
I don't know what the quality of life would be inside that.
They show the picture of the backyard, it's going to be very noisy in that backyard as well.
>> Coun . Benton: I have a question of my own.
Mr. Billy, and Ms. Jacoby.
It's a different for me to absorb.
The discussion about you have to prove no damage to the adjacent property, you are really making the argument for the applicant.
Where they're saying there's no problem from their standpoint.
It's an odd question for us to to be speculating as to damage that is being alleged that may be done from your property to theirs.
I'm having a hard time understanding whose interest you're talking about as far as protection of one from the other.
And you're talking about potential complaints coming from this proposed use change affecting your property.
That's based on, again, some sort of potential for nuisance.
I know that we do have Mr.
I believe we'll hear from him.
>> Mr. President, you can call on him at any point as a city staff member.
>> Coun . Benton: I'm sorry, doctor.
>> may I answer, Mr. President?
>> I really appreciate it.
It shows how hard it is to communicate in five minutes.
The section D of the criteria is talking about harm caused by the zone change.
Any permissive use to the new zone category.
That's we're looking at single family, multifamily or schools.
So, the requirement is the applicant look at all of the permissive uses in their zone and analyze whether that causes harm to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, community in general.
It specifically calls out--like I said, if you ignore my client's property it makes a lot of sense.
You can't ignore my client's property.
The applicant has to prove that none of the permits will cause harm.
>> Coun . Benton: but the alleged noise is coming from your property.
>> if we violate the noise ordinance we get a nice call from Dr.Dimena.
>> Coun . Benton: I understand.
>> it is absolutely unusual.
>> Coun . Benton: when the applicant is saying we don't see any problem for our residents but you're saying your residents are going to complaint about us.
>> Coun . Benton: and also, the single family residents nearby don't complain.
We do know how unhappy Rio rancho residents are with their golf course.
But that doesn't mean you never get noise complaints.
I think we had three over the last couple of years.
None of which have been sustained or proven.
They are much further away.
That noise is going to be a lot louder er er on the subject property.
I don't think we'll in trouble on other people's property, this one is so close and no trees or nothing between, that people sitting in the backyard which is beautiful and would want to sit in the backyard are going to hear that noise.
And we measured it and you can see it's legal, if that property is commercial, and it's illegal if if it's residential.
I think the doctor would be reasonable in interpreting the ordinance and isolate sounds and doing all kinds of things to try to help.
There's no guarantee that's going to work.
And there's no guarantee a future administration or policymaker would choose to read the ordinance stricter and not--he was making interpretations to say we might not have a problem.
There's no guarantee there's not a problem.
If there's a complaint by anyone in the future, [inaudible].
There's no guarantee someone is not going to make a complaint.
As soon as they do our current activity are going to be illegal and get cited and we're going to have to make adjustments.
We don't know what those might be it could go all the way to shutting us down.
>> Coun . Davis: We've spoken so much about Dr. Dimena, would you grace us.
If you were sworn in, please.
This has gone on longer than we thought.
Thank you for joining us.
Can I ask based on anything you've heard in tonight's hearing, doctor, do you anticipate any of the noise documented by the Protester, the golf carts and the whatever, are those exempt from the noise ordinance?
Or do you anticipate the noise ordinance applies this evening?
>> Councilor Benton, Councilor Davis, the golf cart specifically, no.
I think probably exempt under the ordinance based on vehicles meeting traffic code.
They're never--unless they're idle Ing they're not persistent.
I just heard Mr. Bailly talk about delivery trucks.
The trucks themselves idling would fall under the same exemption.
But if they're dropping off food and have Refrigerating commitment--equipment would not be exempt.
We would have to talk about how they're parked.
They would have to be shut off.
>> Coun . Davis: We have these other issues all over town.
We have lots of adjoining uses really close like this.
The applicants and the protesters have shown in the map where these Youthses go--uses go back and forth.
I realize some other policymaker down the road could decide to be strict on this and bring case law on this.
Is there a pattern of the city having a significant amount of complaints for these two adjoins uses and having this issue under the noise ordinance?
This is a thing we should really worry about?
>> thanks for the question.
What's been said so far in the discussion and in our discussion yesterday with all parties involved, I don't want it to come across like we would be lenient and cooperative and looking to help everybody.
That's not the best way to characterize what I'm saying.
I'm saying the noise ordinance is a wet Noodle.
If we're getting a situation where there's a lot of complaints . We get a lot of a lot of complaints where this is all over the city.
Most of you who talked about this, we almost never resolve the issue.
The problem, very Fundament Lael with the ordinance is an objective tool fixing a subjective problem.
People can hear noise, it keeps them up they hate the music, and they want to use noise Ordnance as a way to enforce that.
90% when we go and take readings they're in compliance.
Yes I hear it, and your windows are vibrating but it's not loud enough to trigger a violation.
We try to fine tune this in 2017.
But in trying to do so, if we made the requirement any more stringent you would start restricting people's conversations or the Buzz from their Fluorsent lighting.
It's difficult to Parse out the constituents of the sound and from the videos I think we're going to have a similar problem.
We'll get a clot of complaints and make phone calls to the parties involved.
I don't know there can be constructive outcomes where we resolve this with violations.
Typically what we deal with is trying to work with all parties to come up with a different way to resolve that.
Build a wall, plant more trees, turn the volume down.
>> Coun . Davis: Thank you.
This sounds like what Aboutism.
It seems to me from the record we've heard the applicant knows what they're getting into.
And in my opinion whether they develop a senior living home or Mortuary or night club, it's going to be their obligation with tenants to understand what they're getting into and who the neighbors are and what's that going to be and for current operators can't really control.
I realize that five Decibel difference may make a difference in some large scale violation.
I just don't see this as an issue where everybody's uninformed and we're forcing a war of the neighbors.
This seems like a case that's gone over a year for golf cart noise that was exempt anyway.
And the rest of it seems like secondary to that.
I think we resolved to my Stakz that the primary concern would not bring it into violation and the rest can be resolved.
I'm inclined to see no problem with the zone method.
>> Coun . Lewis: doctor, you studied the noise in the current property in the evening and day time and all the different noises that come from the golf course.
>> not in this specific case.
I'm only talking generalities about the noise ordinance itself.
I wouldn't even make the effort to say anything we studied would be meaningful.
It take as different DJ or band when you talk about a live music event to throw everything out the window.
We have a pretty clear idea of this particular facility.
But we do also get complaints from other facilities.
>> Coun . Lewis: if you haven't tested the specific time and areas we really can't comment on that.
We could only really I guess answer a few questions like this.
That would be, is there a difference on whether the golf course would have violations on whether the property, regardless of whether they're Complainting or not, is a commercial property the way it's zoned or residential property the way it tends to be zoned.
Can you take a sample at one point when oats--it's a commercial then changes to residential property.
Would it change because of that?
Higher potential of violation because of the change of the zone?
>> Councilor Benton, Councilor Lewis, by Deafination absolutely.
I'm trying to find the sweet spot on am microphone.
By definition it would be different if it was commercial versus residential.
They're contemplated at different level.
And there is an important distinct Swhen--when you talk about the residential as the receptor.
There's the only time where we actually take an outdoor reading if that's what the nature of the complaint inasmuch talking about a situation where somebody wants to use a back patio and back porch.
There's a huge difference just because you're talking about a different part of the table.
>> Coun . Lewis: it's a huge difference.
There could be zero violations with how it's zoned right now and there could be violations all day long if it was zoned residential.
That could be the case, correct?
>> Councilor Benton, Councilor Lewis, it's a more complicated answer, but for the sake of time yes.
>> Coun . Lewis: we don't know because we haven't taken actual samples from the current use.
By the way, this golf course has been an incredible success, we almost lost it four years ago.
This Council did an incredible job reducing the water usage.
We almost lost this course.
We would have been like Rio rancho and home values would have gone down.
So no--now it's operating in a specific way, it's successful and providing services.
If it were to change to residential, meaning let's put more residential places and change the zoning for it when we have plenty of other residential zoning, in fact we have too much.
The people that are Anti- development are usually against residential homes.
They're against residential type living.
That's exactly what this zone change would do.
Ego from commercial Servicess which by the why the code in Inencourages.
Our adopted city zoning says on the West side, it encourages more commercial service type Facilitys . and discourages changing the zoning from commercial to residential.
In light of all that, and even that we don't know and could make a good guess with certainty and say that there will be violations.
There will be a change in potential violations whether it's zoned commercial or residential.
With the fact that I think we don't know the specifics of that, I think it makes me even more concerned.
And I can imagine how much it makes the business owner concerned as well as all of the other families and homes that would be concerned if that golf course was threatened in any way by the success of that.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you, doctor.
We have a cross examination period for the applicant.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
I've never cross examined anybody.
I'm trying to pull up a map that's in one of the Epc staff reports that shows a survey done on this property.
I would like to ask Mr. BAYLY some questions.
I'm sorry, I didn't think to bring copies of the survey.
It was done by Curtesian survey.
A reputable firm in Albuquerque or Rio rancho.
And what I would like to ask him--Oh, okay.
What the survey shows is that the golf cart path are actually Inroaching on my client's property.
Both on the East and on the West.
And some of the pictures that they showed during their testimony of the golf carts lined up against the wall, is actually on our property.
I believe from what I saw in the photos that the golf carts were within our property line to the West.
The golf paths you can see Dpoez in and out of the property.
It goes through the property to the East and connects to country club Lane.
I would perhaps like Mr. BAYLY to comment on all those in encroach encroachments encroachments.
>> Coun . Benton: before he answers.
There's an easement dedicated.
Or they're just shown physically on the drawing?
>> Coun . Benton: there's no shared land agreement.
That's going to be our first legal hurdle.
They have legal access to their parking spots.
And we've already discussed this Inroachment on their property.
Where we have plans to build the cart path around their property.
It's going to Elim that that.
There was a picture with the sound meter and I believe all the carts in that picture were actually across this property line which I believe is on our property line.
That picture that was on the other thing was a view from this direction where there are carts on their property as well as carts on our property.
We're just going to move those four to six feet out of the property when we extend that cart path out this direction.
>> Coun . Benton: Ms. Fishman, I'm sorry I interrupted you.
>> and the other part to that, Mr. BAYLY, also spoke about country club Lane being owned by the golf course.
All of the property owners on country club Lane use the same road way.
I'm not sure how it got to be where it is today.
That's seeming like an error on the city's part.
If that is truly a private road way and there's no easement for the benefit of all of the owners on country club Lane, that's a problem.
We did talk about all these items at Epc.
It was two very long hearings we Duked it out.
In the end Epc saw beyond some of the arguments and again recommended approval.
In terms of parking--okay.
>> Mr. President, I think MS.
Jacoby was objecting suggesting that this portion of the hearing is reserved for cross examination, in other words she can ask questions related to the testimony that has been entered.
But not necessarily enter new testimony or advocacy on the issue.
Mr. President, I'll ask a question.
Mr. BAYLY, is it your intent to block access to this property to the current owners of the property?
>> country club Lane comes off of golf course, that's the access for all the residential properties on both sides of country club Lane.
As it comes up there's a drive way and in this area.
That's where country club Lane ends.
Right somewhere in this area.
And this is our parking lot.
And drive way coming this direction.
That is their legal access on the property.
Where are we at as far as blocking spots, we've never had this discussion.
Anymore they haven't said we can't drive across their property.
I'm concerned about the large vehicles, the delivery vehicles blocking.
Like it was mentioned it's very limited access coming in there.
I'm not sure about the larger trucks where they're going to park or unload.
Right now I have no intentions of blocking your parking.
We'll move to cross examination by the Protester.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
I do have some questions for Dr.
My understanding that the golf cart exception you believe falls under Preempttion.
And you believe the motor vehicle code would preempt the Localal Daex LOC>> I would say the traffic code.
And it's also because it's not going to be persistent and continuous unless they're idling.
>> how many minutes it takes persistent and continuous?
Please remind us what limit constitutes persistent and continuous?
>> it has to be over a period of ten minutes during each one minute interval it has to be in excess of the allowable level.
>> I know you mentioned the traffic code, we talked about the motor vehicle code.
Which is 67-7-9 which States shall not prohibit local authorities.
>> right here, operation of golf carts on public lands and property under their jurisdiction.
And all of the interpretations you gave regarding whether gatherings might be--I forget the word for gathering, occasional and not too frequent.
That might be exempt, golf carts can be exempt, golf carts you might single instead of the row of golf carts.
Are any interpretations required by the noise ordinance or your reasonable interpretation?
>> I think we just look at the exemption.
Beyond that it's under enforcement discretion.
The reality of trying to take readings over a single golf carts or series of golf carts is something we frequently encounter and try to enforce this ordinance.
It would be easier to take reading physical the golf carts are moving from their maintenance shed to the first tee to-->> the honest answer is I haven't taken any readings to establish that.
It would be a wild guess.
>> one of the things we talk about that sank in my gut, when you said you got persistent problems and we try and it doesn't work out and more complaints we go back and forth they resolve themselves by a business giving up and leaving.
Is that your experience with these--one neighbor or another giving up, is that your experience with the wet Noodle ordinance?
>> I say typically one party gives up.
Most of the time it's the complainant.
They get tired of calling us and hearing of the technical reasons of why we haven't been able to change anything.
>> if you do find a reading you can substantiate as a violation.
When we have music on Thursday and Fridays in the open and you're able to substantiate a complaint, who do you go to fix it?
>> we go to the owner if the other than is somebody we can get a hold of.
Otherwise, we go to the general manager and start there.
>> okay so you're saying if a complaint is Substantiated and you notice noise issue you're going to tell my client they need to make changes, is that accurate?
We start with a phone call if we know how to get a hold of them.
And by part of our typical administrative process we also send a letter.
>> I think that's all of my question.
Thank you, Mr. President, members of the Council.
We appreciate your attention to the matter.
I have copies of the statutes that were cited to enter into the record.
>> Coun . Benton: We'll go to rebuttal and closing by the applicant.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
If somebody can pull up my presentation.
Mr. President, Councilors, the last slide I wanted to show is the map the supporters of this zone change.
And you'll note that the supporters are very close to the subject property.
They're very close to the golf course.
We have 34 people that signed our petition.
And a handful of them don't live very close to the golf course.
We only map the ones that are adjacent to our property or adjacent to the golf course.
And these are 34 people that indicated their support.
And I don't think that should be discounted.
I don't think one property owner's interest should override everything else.
This property owner talking about the golf course not even their own case, they bought this property knowing that there was residential zoning.
This was residentially zoned in the past before Ido.
The Ido made it commercial.
We want to go back to what we had.
But residential was allowed.
72 town homes, 16 unit guest house, plus the golf course.
We're trying to get that back.
This is a separate parcel.
It's not part of the golf course.
It may seem like it's part of the golf course, it's not.
If Mr. BAYLY was as concerned as he's presenting about this Three-Quarter acre site maybe you should have bought the property instead of just trying to prevent something from happening there.
I find it very troublesome as President Benton, you explained, and the same thing the Epc said.
We're trying to project this condition in the future that we don't know is going to happen.
We're saying it's going to happen.
And it's all about how our use would damage an existing use.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't care how many times we talk about it, it doesn't make sense.
This is a residential neighborhood.
The golf course is surrounding by single family houses and some rentals and we are just trying to reinstate that residential use.
I showed in the overhead, the survey, if there was any issue about parking, this applicant has a chunk of property to the east of the building they could create more parking.
I don't think it's going to be.
These 20 people that live in the building are not going to be driving.
There's going to be a handful of staff that go there.
They have 13 or 15 spaces.
I think that's more than enough.
If they needed more parking in the future they can create it to the east of the building.
With that I urge your support.
This has been a long process.
I think it's pretty straightforward.
We've gotten very confused by the noise ordinance.
We've heard from Dr. Dimena three times.
And I trust what he says.
I don't think this is going to be an issue.
And again I just urge your support.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
>> Coun . Lewis: Thank you, Mr.
I think it was I heard that pretty clear from Dr. Dimena that with this zone change it could be very clearly change the violations and create violations with the existing use.
Whether the new facility complaint or not, this directly puts this business in danger of violating our noise ordinance laws because of that.
Based on it's existing use right now.
I do have a lot of concerns over the noise and the use of the current facility and how it's--and the success of the course.
That's contributing to as well.
The other big concern just has to do with--it was mentioned that this was residential or zoned residential before the Ido changed it, yet it was commercial use for however long that hotel has been there which is several decades.
It's been there a long time.
For the comments about how the golf course was purchased and probably never imagined, that it would change.
That it would change back to residential where it would be a threat and that kind of way pause that's been the usage of that specific facility.
And not just adjacent to them, it almost in encompassed by the golf course and entertainment of the golf course.
And another point is that I just want to say again that Inport parts of the city there's a big difference.
We often on the West side see that there's many--and we complain.
We complain about sprawl.
About we just build more residential areas.
And so, the people that are against the sprawl are really like what about the services.
And what about doing more density closer to the urban areas.
And we're taking policies that we have in the zoning code that says we need more services in these areas of residential areas.
And also discourages zone changes from commercial to residential.
So, I see a lot of not furthering the purpose of our zoning code.
I have listed some findings that I think based on the testimony tonight and the record from the Epc I think the Epc missed a lot of this without looking at the purpose of our zoning codes and really Miss some of those.
Mr. President, I'm going to make a motion to deny the zone change and I have some findings that will present to the Council.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion to deny, is there a second?
Second from Councilor Sanchez.
>> Coun . Lewis: Mr. Melendrez is it appropriate to read these?
>> it's probably better for staff to give an overview.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Lewis, what you have in front of you are proposed alternative findings.
There are findings included in the ordinance that support adoption of the zone map amendments.
These support denial of the zone map.
This is--these outline policies in the comprehensive plan that the request does not further which supports the motion for denial.
And the last section jumps into the zone map amendment criteria and provides justification for why the request has not adequately justified what the Ido requires.
I'd stand for any questions on the specifics.
All the text you see in blue on this exhibit is the narrative behind why the request has not been Adkwkt Equately justified per the ordinance.
>> Coun . Benton: I have a question.
There are a couple on the second page where it saying that the policy is not furthered because it's not in a center order.
Isn't that--the policy is not furthered because it's not in the area but the policy isn't really about--it's not saying it has to be in a corridor for it to be further does it?
>> Mr. President, give me a moment to review the policy you're referring.
>> Coun . Benton: on the second page.
Capture regional growth and centers and quarters.
That doesn't preclude capturing growth outside does it?
>> Mr. President, I believe that can be interpretation.
>> Coun . Benton: it has to be-->> correct it's not in a center or corridor.
>> Coun . Benton: Similarly, 5.2.1 is focusing on certain places where it would be desirable to have higher density housing with the centers and corridors.
It's not exclusive to that.
Convenient access to transit.
I would think this policy from the COMP plan is talking about the certain areas where these patterns are Dewriter Sire able desirable.
It's not meant to include these types of areas and developments.
>> Mr. President, I think that's correct.
The centers and corridor approach in the comprehensive plan says we should focus growth in those areas and establish centers and corridors.
But there's not a hard and fast policy there cannot be growth anywhere else.
It uses the word encourage explicitly.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
>> Coun . Lewis: Mr. President, of course it's--I think you have to look at does the change--this is not about is it against the law or not.
It's about does it further the purpose.
Does it further the idea and the heart of what we're getting at.
We can go on about just a mix of uses.
Does it encourage mix of uses?
Well this policy by doing this would not further that because our ml zone district will not permit mix of uses in that area.
It's like everything else.
That's a great example of it doesn't further it.
And the other examples are pretty clear that this type of a zone change would not further the objectives and including 5-4-2 capacity for commercial office West of the Rio Grande to support additional job growth.
This policy is not further because the request of Rml does not allow for commercial land uses.
It preserves the commercial development.
So there's a pretty extensive amount of findings because this changes applies to so many parts of the policy.
>> Coun . Benton: I appreciate that, Councilor.
I'm just trying to Procedurally understand where we are right now.
With a big agenda still ahead.
Our instructions is that findings must be distributed.
That doesn't mean we're accepting the findings, or does it?
If we vote in affirmative on the appeal?
>> Mr. President, if the vote to deny the zone map amendment was supported the assumption is the findings support that motion.
>> Coun . Benton: if there's some we don't agree with?
If some of the findings not agreeable to the Council.
Or would they automatically be adopted?
>> Mr. President, the findings presented if you were to support the motion to deny.
They would be defined in support of the motion.
To the extent that the Councilor want to support the motion but not the finding, they can offer any changes to the finding they felt appropriate otherwise if a Councilor disagreed with all the findings they would vote against the motion.
>> Coun . Benton: We're basically proceeding with package of finding we're just now digesting.
>> Coun . Lewis: typically we might actually vote on the motion and come back on the following week to finalize the finding.
If you're not comfortable adopting finding tonight and the motion to do my is passed you can amend to up Dopt at at a later time.
The way you stated the motion was denial.
If you want to limit that to Dopt findings at a later date you can take these findings under advisement.
If they want to give feedback they have the opportunity.
Ats your next meeting you have opportunity to vote on finding.
The Council can give feed back and we address it at the next meeting with--because the intention of this was just trying to be thorough.
Yet, there's Thingsope Toon interpretation we can focus on.
If I--do I need to change the motion at all?
Basically, it's a motion to denial.
With findings we would formalize at later time.
>> I think that captures what you're talking about.
>> Coun . Benton: thanks for the clarification.
We do have a motion and a second.
That's a tough decision for me.
I have a hard time with the logic presented in a way.
I think it's going to go the way it goes.
Unless there's any other questions we'll go to a vote.
The motion is for a denial of the application.
All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
That passes on a 6-3 vote.
We will-->> Mr. President, we'll have an item on the next agenda limited to only adoption of finding.
We'll have to go through the hearing again at that time--specifically to findings and support.
And the matter will be final.
>> Coun . Benton: the reason I raise this, I do think it creates some sort of precedent.
How we act and justify our decisions.
That's pretty important stuff.
I'm going to move to suspend the rules to continue the meeting until 11:00.
There's a motion and second.
All those in favor say yes.
We'll move now to item C.
Councilor Bassan and Councilor Pe} a.
O-34, redistricting the nine city council districts of the city of Albuquerque.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Thank you, Mr.
It's redistricting nine city council districts in the city of Albuquerque.
Actually probably would start out with a motion for deferral.
I'd like to hear the presentations and hear from anybody who is signed up to speak just because for the sake of time I think really asking for redistricting at 10:30 at night when people don't have an opportunity to voice their concerns or really be part of the process isn't the way to go.
My motion would be for a deferral of O-34.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion and a second.
We do have a person signed up to speak.
>> Coun . Pe} a: I would like to do the presentation and we'll go to public comment.
Deferral until the next meeting.
>> Coun . Benton: who is going to be giving the presentation?
Okay, Ms. Morris on the screen.
>> good evening, Mr. President.
We have Britney from research and polling.
They gave us a great overview of the committee process earlier this spring.
And we had wise words from chair McGill.
We have a more detailed presentation on the map that you have to consider.
There were eight maps recommended for consideration by the Council.
While there's one attached to the bill before you for consideration.
I'm available to answer any questions as is Julian.
And also we have Britney and Michael and Brian from research and polling on the line to answer any questions.
With that, I'll hand it over to Britney for presentation.
Good evening, Councilor Benton, Councilors.
I'm going to jump right in.
I'm going to share my screen just so we can really briefly a reminder of where we are.
These are the current Council districts.
The district numbers are on top and the second number in the gray box is the deviation from the ideal population.
As we talked about last time I was with you all, we're required by state law for that deviation to be within plus or minus five percent.
You can see in the current Council district which districts are within that percent and which districts are not.
District five is too large.
And will need to get smaller and shed population.
District one and three are the other West side districts are within plus or minus, but on the higher end.
And altogether the three West side districts have about 23% too many people.
They have about 23% of Council seat too many people on the West side.
Which means one or more of the East side districts will need to cross the river and take in some of the excess population on the West side.
You can see in the East side districts, these are all on the lower end.
District six and District eight are both too small.
And will need to grow and pick up population.
And the other thing to note is that because of the requirements those East side that across to the West side can only across win city limits and we only placed across here is between I-40 and central and a little bit south of central.
All of that in mind, as was said we worked with your redistricting committee to come up with recommendations for you to consider.
And as you any the committee sent eight map concepts for you.
The one attached to the bill is concept a which received the highest rating from the committee members.
We thought we'd take a little time to walk through what concept a does.
So, I'll pull that up now.
Concept a, we think about as a minimal change plan.
The idea is that we change the boundaries only to accommodate those population issues.
And try to keep the core of existing districts intact.
I'm going to turn on the boundaries of the current districts in the green and white so you can see where the changes are.
So you have district five too large and needed to Skring--shrink and lose population.
This moves district five and District one from montano.
And it takes this neighborhood from district five and puts it into district one to eat some of the population in district five.
The other thing hat happened is East side district needs to come across the river and pick up excess population.
Under concept a it's district two that comes across.
Downtown district comes across the river between I-40 and central to Coors and takes Pat hurley and West Mesa neighborhoods from district one.
District three is unchanged.
It's the same as current district.
District four and District nine are also unchanged.
District two having picked up that extra population from the West side ends only crossing I-25 south of Gibson.
Otherwise it stays West of I-25.
District six picks up population moving from Buena Vista to I-25 and taking University West.
Which is where Tingly is and the University satellite.
And the other change is distribute eight needed to pick up population moved into district seven just from Montgomery and Eubank to Wyoming.
Concept retained three Hispanic majority districts in district one, two, and three.
Again this is the one that is in the bill.
And also was rated the highest by the committee.
There are seven other concepts in the report that were recommended.
I'm going to give you a brief over view.
Two of them are really similar to concept a.
Map one which was the fourth highest rated plan moves a handful of precincts between district one and two and nine and seven and seven and eight just to equalize the population further to get it closer.
Citizen map two is even more similar to concept a and was actually the second most popular plan as rated by the committee.
Moves the boundary more between district eight and seven to continue to increase the population in district eight slightly.
Those three concepts are really similar.
And they build off the existing districts.
The other plans are a little different.
Concept D, the idea there is that West side is really similar to concept a, but concept nine--that was the third highest ranked plan by the committee.
Concept a the idea was to redistributed the downtown area between two districts . District six comes into the Southern part of downtown and District two retains the northern part.
Citizen map three, the idea coming from the individual that submitted this map to the committee is uniting some of the historic areas in the downtown District with some of the historic areas in the University area.
Some of the other neighborhoods putting that in the same district in district two.
Which means district six comes and takes part of Barelas.
Citizen map four is absolutely identical to citizen map two except for district six and seven.
Under current district, District seven is stacked on top of district six.
And under citizen map four district seven is sort of on the West side and District six is on the East side of that area.
Under current districts, seven and six are separated by Lomas and under citizen map four seven and six are separated by essentially San Mateo.
And finally, citizen map five creates four majority districts and takes two districts across the river.
District two and District six all the way to Unser.
That's a quick and dirty summary of all eight plans.
I'm happy do stand for questions or Describen Eany plain in more detail.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you for that summary.
We do have a person signed up to speak.
Why don't we hear from him and see where we want to go.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
I'll try to make this briefer than I had planned.
I was member on the committee.
I was a Non-Voting member.
Thank you for the opportunity.
It was fascinates to see where we were, where we're going.
Hearing all the different opinions.
A couple really quick Takeaways.
Our city has changed drastically.
But to use Councilor Lewis's words the people stacking in his district is tremendous.
I live down here and prefer to walk.
When I drive out there, you can see the positive impact the Residentvise--vise have had in that area.
To use a status quo map would be a disservice to the city.
If you look at the current map compared to the 2000S that change is bigger.
I ask you amend more maps being included.
The second is change in population.
Hispanic population has grown.
We're 48.7% of the population city.
We'll be the majority of the population very soon.
And our current maps, include Ing all of the maps except for future map, discount that.
We had experts share testimony saying we needed to further the voting rights act we need to include that in the map making decision.
It doesn't take much to see the Hispanics are not Adkwktly represented on the Council.
>> Coun . Benton: you have a third point you did not get to?
>> Coun . Benton: since you waited this long.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
My final question was to amend or add in the fairness or future for discussion at Council or defer this to another time for discussion.
>> Coun . Benton: I think there's an interest in deferring.
Thanks for sticking with us.
And thanks for serving on the committee.
>> we have a couple speakers on zoom.
>> Mr. President, members of the Council it's great to see you in chambers.
Although do Miss cookies Chiming in every now in then.
I'm policy director for the center of civic policy.
I'm here to ask for deferral in support of Councilor Pe} a's motion for deferral.
I know it was to hear this at the next Council meeting.
My asking for defer just longer so we have more representation by our communities.
Every ten years the Council has a mandate to evaluate Redistrict redistricting (the redistricting committee was confined to a July deadline while Council had the opportunity to engage more with the public.
As the Redistrictic member mentioned that it was a fascinating experience.
Although it was a long process to get there.
To have our community voicing why they supported each map was also important.
Like Mr. Baca was mentioning, I think all of the maps should have a consideration and evaluation.
Specifically adopting map five for our future map would have four Hispanic voting age districts to represent our growing population.
This only happens every ten years.
You must account for the changes.
This will also present five black and indigenous communities.
>> thank you, your time sup.
>> good evening, thank you.
>> Mr. President, it looks like we lost Maureen.
I can let you know when she Rejoins the meeting.
>> Coun . Benton: Let's see if she gets back on.
Councilors, we do have a motion for deferral until our next meeting.
There's a discussion about perhaps we might need--perhaps a little bit longer than that.
I'll leave that up to Councilor Pe} a.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Mr. President, we actually have a couple of floor amendments that without belaboring anything Maybe if at least an opportunity for the public to hear what those two amendments are.
>> Coun . Pe} a: the first one is Mr. President from Councilor Davis.
>> Coun . Davis: Thank you, Mr.
I don't know if Ms. Morris is prepared to present, or I can do it.
>> Coun . Benton: Ms. Morris?
>> yes, let me just share my screen and I can bring up map.
So, Councilor Davis's amendment, this amendment proposes to print out the exhibit associated with the bill.
Each of the bill--each of the amendments you might hear tonight all make the same change in that they switch out the exhibit to the bill.
The exhibit to the bill is a 13-Page document witch--contains a map of the counsel district, a data sheet and two pages of precinct information.
So, Councilor Davis's amendment switches out concept map a with citizen map four.
We had a good summary on this from Britney.
This map is based on citizen map two.
Which is based on concept map a and makes changes to District six and seven.
District Sixes becomes the International district.
And Council seven contains the uptown area.
University area, Nob Hill and Mesa del Sol.
>> Coun . Davis: Thank you.
I'm sorry to put you on the spot.
We didn't Rehorse horse horse--we won't push this today.
The purpose for this was exactly that.
The International district is one of the disadvantaged neighborhoods and Underinvested neighborhoods.
One of the reasons that happened for so long much like part of the Southwest Mesa before my colleague really started advocating for that as a community is that the District itself is divided between two and a half three city council districts.
What that means is that the International district itself which is poorer than the rest of the city is definitely a minority majority community.
Their votes are Mrit--split.
The opportunity to coordinate capital outlay is often not Newtalized because of other priorities.
We can count the number of individuals and say they're even.
The fact is voter participation is much lower in part because they don't have a single voice and representation and way to elevate their common issues.
We think this is an important conversation to be had.
It creates the opportunity for us to have our first Natd Native-American or African-American city Councillor.
I think that's important for us to consider.
It would consolidate the communities and low income communities and giving them an opportunity to coordinate together instead of among different Councilors who share that neighborhood and not that we leave them apart.
If in the current district six we look at voter turnout, the Councilor can run in district six and not get one vote from the current piece of Ininternational district that's in our district and still in with all the Voerts from the or the that's part of the perpetuating there civic Uninteracting.
I think it's worth considering.
I want to bring that for consideration at the next meeting.
Thank you, Mr. President.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
>> Coun . Pe} a: the next one is from Councilor Fiebelkorn.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Sanchez had a question.
>> Coun . Sanchez: citizen map four we put together.
We all voted on making sure we have representation in each one of our districts and the voters have spoken.
On citizen map four it was rated number seven.
To replace that with concept a is a far reach in my opinion.
I'm also having to give up historical significance in my district.
The area I'm losing in my district has been cultural significant in reference to the Atrisco Krair for generations.
Every single city Councillor except for one that I know of was from the heart of the District which is the lava land John Adams area.
Like you said before, concept a is what the citizens and all of our representatives including everyone here voted for.
Citizen map four falls way to the bottom at number seven of the eight.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Fiebelkorn.
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
I was going to see if Ms. Morris would review map five.
>> Mr. President, Councilors, I shared my screen with citizen map five.
And this amendment is very similar in format to what I just presented to Councilor Davis's amendment.
This instead of concept map a switches out for citizen map five.
Citizen map five is the map that our public Speaker references.
This map speaks to make sure that there are four Hispanic majority Council districts and achieves that.
It also has two Council districts crossing the river.
District two crosses the river and District six crosses the river.
This map makes some changes to District six and includes the International district, some of the Nob Hill Unm area, Mesa del Sol.
A little bit of the Southern portion of downtown and a portion of the West side as well.
And in Council district two, it's primarily made up of the downtown core and a portion of the West side.
This map doesn't make any changes to District three.
There's one small change.
District six is the a Trisco area.
It actually goes to old Coors south of central.
I'm looking at a slimmed down version.
I couldn't quite see that.
Thanks for the correction.
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Ms. Morris.
I'm going to move this at the next meeting.
I really just wanted to bring it up.
As you heard from lot of the speakers tonight the fairness for our futures map is the preferred one for a lot of folks concerned about equity.
I think we should have a conversation around the possibility of having four minority districts on city council.
And what that would look like and the value to the average Albuquerque resident would be.
And I also want to sigh that this is a once in a decade.
One time every ten years we get to do something that can really impact equity in Albuquerque.
I just look forward to that conversation at the next meeting.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Sanchez.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Thank you, Mr.
Again, the voters, our people we actually put on the actual committee voted.
The committee in my opinion could have given us a last few choices to deal with.
Five, six, seven, and eight would not be there.
In my opinion we're going against the will of the people we hired and put on the committee.
And also, we're going against and breaking up culturally significant areas on the West side as well.
I think it's really important we listen to the individuals who we actually put on the committee and go with what our people thought was extremely important for the city of Albuquerque moving forward.
That's the reason why we put the committee together.
That's the when we have the committee.
I think it's important we actually follow the wishes of the committee.
And for me, I'd ready to vote tonight.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor Fiebelkorn.
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
I just want to respond to that.
District seven had representation from Travis Kellerman.
He did an amazing job on redistricting committee.
And his number one vote was for the fairness for the future act which is why I brought it forward.
Because I do have complete faith and trust in the person that you pointed to the redistricting committee.
>> Coun . Benton: all right.
There's a discussion about possibly deferral beyond the 2 21st which would be the third.
Is that a Yes at this point?
>> Coun . Bassan: Mr. President, I support a deferral.
I think the next meeting would be fabulous because as far as I'm concerned if we go to the next meeting and defer it again, I think the public has a right to have opinion about this.
We've had high-profile topics on the agenda and they've been Over-Shouldode and not providing the people of Albuquerque to voice.
I'm hoping through Council or Whoever is on social media because I'm not, we let people know this is happening.
For those people that don't know.
This is a once in a decade thing and the public should hear about it.
I Perf we keep it as a deferral.
And I'm not opposed to deferring it again.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Yeah, that work for me.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion for deferral until September 21st.
All those in favor say yes.
Councilor Sanchez opposed.
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
Before I introduce this bill I wanted to thank director Montoya who is Thankfully not here this late.
I wanted to thank the director of Department of municipal development and all the staff at DMD.
They worked with my office, the requested stop sign has been installed and there's a plan to get the crosswalk and the curb cut in place very soon.
And they're working on that.
With that, I will say for R-Some directing the administration to install three way intersections.
>> Coun . Benton: does that require a vote?
There's a motion and a second from Councilor Davis.
All those in favor say yes.
And that passes unanimously.
Councilor Pe} a, Councilor Grout, myself and Councilor Davis.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Thank you, Mr.
President it's establishing community improvement program route 66 along it's entire length through the city making an appropriation and move a due pass.
>> Coun . Benton: I'll second that motion.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Actually, we do have an amendment.
But we actually have director Sanchez who stayed here all night long.
I'd lover for her to come up and talk about, because as you know this is my thing in terms of route 66 celebration coming up in a few years from now.
I know we've already allocated money so we can have some events associated.
Not just one event, but events leading up to and for the route 6610--with this money looking at how we can make changes to the route for the entire stretch in terms of Signage and the like.
And director Sanchez and her staff have been working really hard on this.
>> President Councilor Benton, Councilor Pe} a, I'd like to remark it is after 10 o'clock.
Not necessarily my most articulate at this point.
We're very excited to be working with the Council.
I know we've had several meetings with several Councilors about the whole stretch because it touches so many Council districts.
And we've got several activities we've started focusing on the historic signs.
We have a great partnership with friends of the orphan signs.
We're excited to look at historic signs to work with property owners to figure out how to get those restored in Theneck four years.
We're working with visit Albuquerque on a comprehensive promotional plan.
We're working on a big calendar of Efrbt vents and there's lot of other opportunities for departments to be involved.
Dmd solid waste, planning.
I know there's lot of improvements we want to see from one end to the other.
We have specific plans underway.
Community engagement and we're looking forward to all of those things.
And money can make lot of those things go faster and be lot more robust.
Thank you for your interest and engagement and I'm happy to answer questions or speak about it another time over coffee in the morning.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you, director.
>> Coun . Pe} a: Thank you.
Floor amendment number one is revise on page two section three as follows.
Deletes the section three and inserts the follow amount appropriated from available fund balance to the following program for fiscal year 23 arts and cultural 250,000 there.
It's a clean Skwup replaces the text in section three in entirety.
And just want to end with I'd love to hear from the other sponsors.
I didn't ask Councilor Sanchez if he wanted to sponsor because we can only have up to four Councilors.
I know that his interest and even the interest of Councilors who don't have central is really important to make sure we have a real strong corridor for the city where people enter from the East and West.
I appreciate everybody's input and support on this.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion for the amendment.
And we'll vote on that amendment.
Unless there's any discussion.
All those in favor of the amendment number one say yes.
We're back on the bill as amended.
>> Coun . Grout: Thank you, Mr.
I'd like to thank Councilor Pe} a for taking the lead on this.
I'm really excited to work with you and my other colleagues.
Route 66 is the heart of our city.
And we have an opportunity to really Spruce it up and showcase our city.
I'm really looking forward to working with everybody.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you.
I'll echo with regard to Councilor Sanchez this is--we can't have five because we're prevented from doing that.
You'll be an integral part of this.
And it will be great to have five Councilors carrying the flag for this.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Thank you, Mr.
And yes, I would totally be in support of this all the way through.
I think it's really, really important and one of the things is I want to be critical as to how well they clean.
I really want it cleaned up and cleaned up nice.
I'm going to be one of those that's very critical on how well it gets cleaned.
Thank you for establishing this bill.
>> Coun . Benton: We're back on the bill as amended.
Councilor Pe} a to close.
>> Coun . Pe} a: urge your support.
>> Coun . Benton: all those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
I think we can--I don't know how quickly we can get through these two.
We'll go ahead and give it a go.
I'll move we suspend the rules until 11:15 and see how we're going.
There's a motion and a second, thank you, Councilor Bassan.
We're back on the agenda.
Item f is R-64 this is my bill calling for stay of enforcement.
Related to Townhouse development in the integrated development ordinance for a time period of one year or until the 2022Ido annual update has been enacted.
Thank you for that second.
I believe I heard Councilor Jones first.
And we do have Ms. Schulz to explain this.
It's something that came up recently that we've noticed that I was surprised to see.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
Apologies, this is going to get into the weeds of the Ido.
This is related to Townhouse development a regulation that says when you are doing Townhouse development and the rear or the side lot line of the Townhouse development Abuts an RA or R1 zone district the townhouses may not be more than three dwelling Yunalitys in size.
Today the Ido says the Townhouse dwelling is anything three or more units.
This particular provision limits it to only three and very explicit circumstances when they're being developed correctly next to the RA zone district.
What this stay of enforcement does calls for the provision to not be enforced only for Townhouse development that's occurring in urban centers, main street corridors or premium transit areas.
The stay of enforcement is specifically limited to those Ucmspt areas because they're supposes to be more urban in nature where Townhouse dwelling of three or more might be appropriate.
The larger scale Townhouse development.
Outside of the areas and the less urban areas of town this provision will stay in place.
The other thing this resolution does is call for the planning Department along with Downsal services to review this provision during the 2022 annual update for potential Perminate removal along with other Townhouse regulations as Townhouse development is a type of development that city policy says we should be encouraging.
So barriers such as this one may prevent that and the overall intention is to look at Townhouse regulations as a whole.
>> Coun . Benton: Thank you for that.
I think the strategic location of this and those urban developing areas is pretty important because of the Affordability issue townhouses and the old adage in Albuquerque [inaudible].
Outdoors and separation between their dwellings.
That's still true to a great extent.
But the Affordability issue has really risen.
And many more people are in the market for a Townhouse.
Less maintenance and some cost savings over having a single family dwelling.
That's what this is about.
>> Coun . Sanchez: Thank you, Mr.
I'm not too good at this stuff when comes to Ido issue.
I'm going to ask a lot of questions in reference to it.
Again, how many townhouses did you say you can line up?
>> the way the Ido contemplates Townhouse is there's two qualifies, there's a minimum of three attached minute and every unit has to have an individual ground floor entrance.
The minimum of three, maximum of infinity.
There's no cap on how many attached units can make a Townhouse.
The distinction between a Townhouse and multifamily development in the Ido is requirement every unit has ground floor entrance.
That's what would give you a visual distinction between a Townhouse and a more traditional looking apartment.
>> Coun . Sanchez: isn't infinity an apartment complex?
I'm trying to wrap my--I can't figure out why'd we have Intinty lined up.
It sounds like an apartment complex to me.
Is that a different portion of the Ido, townhouses verses Intinty apartment Complexs?
>> they are distinct uses and defined differently in the Ido.
A Townhouse is a defined type of low density residential land use and multifamily is the other type of land use that would be a more traditional looking apartment complex that might have exterior or interior rent Entrances Entrances.
>> Coun . Sanchez: but they're still connected to each other like apartments?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, townhouses are connected to each other similar to how apartments are, yes.
>> Coun . Sanchez: I see lot of apartments have two on bottom and two on top and that makes one building and you actually have the whole apartment complex.
I don't know that I'd like to see infinity lined up on one block.
I don't think I've seen that in Albuquerque.
Do we have that in Albuquerque?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, there's several instances of Townhouse development around Albuquerque that are three to maybe eight or nine units connected at most that I'm aware of and the example I was reviewing for this legislation.
I haven't seen Townhouse development go larger than maybe eight eight, nine, or ten units.
Which looks like row House style or Brown stone style.
>> Coun . Sanchez: and is that a row House development?
>> Coun . Sanchez: I'm learning.
I need to understand what I'm voting for.
That's why I'm asking the questions.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, are you house is not--row house is not a defined term.
It's a stylized term used for that type of Townhouse.
>> Coun . Sanchez: and I want to make sure I understand where these can be.
Is it anywhere vacant land or there's certain areas where they're supposed to be?
If you give me another five seconds my Ido will reopen and I can tell you the zoning districts that Townhouse development is allowed in.
I'll be able to tell you that in just one moment.
>> thank you for your patience.
Townhouse development is a permissive use in the R-T zone district, R-Ml, R-Mh, Mx-T, MX Mx-H.
>> Coun . Sanchez: now since I'm not familiar.
Let's say for example there's an empty lot in the middle or across the street from my house.
And I have residential area.
Can you just pop a row of House right across the street from me?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, if in this example the lot across the street from you has one of the zoning districts I described, Townhouse development would be allowed as permissive use.
It would be dependent upon the zoning of the subject property.
What I'm trying to do is figure out where exactly they would be.
I just need a little bit more information on that as well.
I'm just envisioning a row of houses is like an apartment complex.
And I also wanted to know what land they need to be on.
I'm basic Lae not ready to vote on this.
I'd like to defer so I can get information.
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, I had a question that Piggy backs off yours.
If the answer is what I I think it would be it might help.
>> Coun . Bassan: in the staff unless, putting a stay of enforcement while this is not enforced.
I was thinking there's all these town homes throughout Albuquerque.
And this is where it doesn't read that clearly in the legislation but in the staff analysis it specifically says this provision in the Ido is applicable sit a wide, however this stay of enforcement would only impact Townhouse development in urban centers, main street areas, or premium transit areas.
To me, if you can confirm that is true and that's what is written, I think that relieve some of the concern for the potential for an infinite amount of town homes developed on residential block when we're talking about urban centers main street areas.
>> yes, the state of enforcement is specifically only applicable to those urban centers main street and premium transit areas which are defined areas.
Central, Broadway, fourth street, downtown.
The more intensely urban areas.
Those are where the stay of enforcement allows a Townhouse development that was developing an Ar-1 zone district to have more than three units.
>> Coun . Sanchez: I think one of the things is important is we define Intinty Ty Ty Ty Ty--infinity and not have infinity.
I don't know what the perfect number would be.
Infinity seems too much for me.
And I have another question what was the spirit of the individuals who wrote this?
What were they trying to accomplish when it was written?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Sanchez, I would defer that to the sponsor.
>> Coun . Benton: the-->> Coun . Sanchez: I'm talking about the original not the change.
>> Coun . Benton: the original I think intent of having three, I'm not sure.
That would be someone in the planning Department because it doesn't come from the Council that I know of.
>> Mr. President, I'm sorry I can describe the answer to that.
I thought you were asking about the origin of this resolution.
But the original provision in the Ido that the stay of enforcement is applicable was new in the Ido in 2018.
It was not a carry over from the previous zoning code.
The understanding is when Townhouseses are developing next to an R a zone district, if they're limited to three units at a time that Three-Unit building might be more in scale with the RA and R1 zoning directly next to that once you get into four or more that development directly next to the zone district might not match up.
>> Coun . Benton: Councilor, one more aside, in the old zoning code this was not--this is something that was new created in the Ido and myself and the staff caught Off-Guard when we saw it.
Especially in the developing corridors.
I agree about the infinity.
I don't think we want to say that.
I don't think it reads that way.
I think Ms. Schultz about character characterizing that.
That might be something we need to look at.
>> Coun . Sanchez: that's one of the things that concerns me.
Are we going to end up with a massive row of houses in a certain area.
I don't think that's the right thing to do in our city.
I don't mind if there's three or four attached.
It's just my personal opinion.
I think it looks better and is nicer when you have a Bitted of a break up.
It's important to the people that want to live there.
And they take better care of it, to tell you the honest truth.
>> Coun . Benton: any other questions?
Again, this is trying to keep us from completely abandoning a form of development that was allowed in the previous zoning code.
I don't know of any that went Infint.
From a construction point, you wouldn't be able to do that.
Probably from fire code as well.
Other questions, Councilors?
There's a motion and second.
All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
Now we're on our final item.
>> Coun . Lewis: I move a due pass of R-65.
>> Coun . Benton: there's a motion and second from Councilor Bassan on R-65.
We're going to move forward.
We're going to need another suspension of the rules.
>> we have public comment.
I don't know if you want to do the rules first.
>> Coun . Benton: we do have people signed up for public comment.
Is there a motion to extend the meeting?
There's a motion and to go to 11:30.
There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
>> thank you, Mr. President.
First Speaker is Tony followed by Annette.
>> hello, I'm the program director for homeless assistance to end homelessness.
It's misguided to Realkale the money.
Due to the barriers inherent of not having a stable place to live that get in the way of experiencing homelessness having a voice that Img pact them the most.
With a focus of connecting with people experiencing homeless homelessness.
We've collected 600 signatures many of people living on the street.
They overwhelming support the safe outdoor spaces.
We reached out to city Councilors that said they support that since supported the moratorium.
We're thankful that one tonight chose not to override the Mayor's veto.
And safe outdoor spaces are slated to move forward.
If you take away the funding now, safe outdoor spaces will not have a fair chance of being Successple successful.
Please protect the funding.
>> Karen, followed by Rosemary.
>> sorry, I was having difficulty.
Good evening, I speak in opposition to R-22-65.
Currently, there are already a lot of resources available to homeless and precariously housed veterans.
The veteran integration center provides services.
The V.A . Medical center allows Walk-Ins on the VA campus.
Residential recovery program job for veterans and supportive housing vouchers for veterans.
Good will has a program called Sfbs to provide housing employment and supportive services for homeless and precariously housed services.
Heading home has a transitional program for veterans.
These are some of the many resources already funded for homeless VETS.
The Inry is this transfers away from safe outdoor spaces which is what some wartime veterans prefer as transitional over confinement in a shelter or four walled space.
And suggest everybody watch Ken burns Ten-Part documentary on the Vietnam war it's a Priep--funding would be transferred not only from safe outdoor spaces that provide a safe space for veterans but also for all women who live fearfully in outdoor spaces that are not secure and safe.
They feel safer there a than being in a shelter 17 miles west of town.
Mr. President, members of the Council, once again, I still reside in district two.
I'm urging you to oppose the redirection of safe outdoor space potential funds to other purposes as proposed in Councilor Lewis's resolution, R-22-65.
While Councilor Lewis's resolution--excuse my cat is trying to testify.
Proports to assist homeless veterans it ignores the fact that services to all Unhoused persons in Albuquerque will actually better identify veteran INS need of services.
There are many veterans among the Unhoused population in Albuquerque.
But they're rarely clearly identified among those who are being carried from one temporary site to the next by Criminalization of homelessness.
If Unhoused community members are provided with appropriately managed safe outdoor spaces and other alternatives where they can be identified and connected with service providers, the veterans among them are more likely to actually be connected with the services they need and they are entitled to.
I urge you to not pass resolution R-22-65.
Leave the money in safe outdoor spaces and related programs where you're more likely to connect with the veterans.
>> Coun . Davis: it's pad Davis, would you introduce us to your cat.
She was looking over the shoulder and became quite the celebrity.
>> I know my cat is a real media hog.
Her name is band Randy and she loves zoom because she likes to dominate zoom meetings.
>> Coun . Davis: she does it well and appreciate her staying up.
>> you're welcome, Councilor Davis.
>> Mr. President, there's a handful of others signed up to speak but they're no longer in the meeting.
That concludes public comment.
>> Coun . Benton: We're back on the bill.
Any discussions, Councilors?
>> Coun . Bassan: Mr. President, I do have a question related and I guess director I'm glad you're still here.
And perhaps this is going to be something for Mr. Rael because it's going to be interdepartmental related.
With Coronado park we were told there was an estimated $27,000 used every two weeks to clean it among seven departments.
What are we doing with that funding now?
I mean, how is it specifically, what it was costing was to clean Coronado Park, I know and realize the city departments have their work cut out.
If we're allocating them before, now what are we doing?
>> Mr. President, Councilor Bassan, just so we're clear I think we had this conversation sometime ago.
The $27,000 that you all received really was the cost of the individuals that are assigned to each of the departments that go out and do that work once a week.
Those individuals are already paid for and that was part of their job.
To tell you the number was not an accurate number because we used those folks that clean other parks.
They just assumed they want to have the number for that one day.
The number is not nearly that high.
As a matter of fact, I don't remember the number but it was less than $8,000 a day.
Because all those folks are already working for us.
The point being that the money allocated for safe outdoor spaces was to cover the cost.
As Ms. Pierce said of funding of operations and supporting the entities that would be provided the safe outdoor spaces.
We would be contracting with third parties to fund these facilities so it's not the city staff managing the day to day operations of those and giving them to support ensure all of the work around the sites, for example the fencing, that there's support for them to do that work.
>> Coun . Bassan: Thank you for that.
Yet at the same time we were given those numbers by everybody when we asked for them.
We were told $27,000 every two weeks.
I recognize those departments are still doing it.
I'm going to make my vote very simple.
When we were doing the budget this money I was hoping would go to living lots.
Therefore I don't support it anyway.
>> Coun . Benton: any other comments or questions?
>> Coun . Fiebelkorn: Thank you, Mr. President.
I just grow tired of the continual roll backs.
We passed safe outdoor spaces and then we put forward a bill that says we should figure out how they're going to work.
And in our Infininate Silliness we didn't pass that bill.
Family and community services saved us and did that work anyway and shared it with us.
And we really appreciate that.
Because we passed safe outdoor spaces and we need to have rules.
Now we tried to roll back safe outdoor spaces and that failed.
Family and community services can't save us again.
We are going to have safe outdoor spaces.
And we might as well have some money to put into them to make them successful.
I just--we continually try to roll back, we continually try to change the budget and Reallocate funds and make political spaces.
Safe outdoor spaces are legal in the city of Albuquerque.
We're going to have them and I would like them to be managed so people are actually safe and security in those safe outdoor spaces.
>> Coun . Grout: Mr. President, thank you.
How did you come up with this number for $750,000?
How much money does each space cost?
>> Council President, Councilor Grout, that 750,000 that Awas approved in the budget is based on the estimate at the time that this could cost up to $150,000 per safe outdoor space.
When we're developing the budget long ago that was our best estimate for a handful of safe outdoor spaces in our community.
>> Coun . Grout: that's a very low number to me to run this property.
I don't see how that is going to happen.
>> Coun . Benton: other discussion--there's a motion and a second for R-65.
Councilor Lewis to close.
>> Coun . Lewis: urge your support.
>> Coun . Benton: all those in favor say yes and raise your hand.
That passes on a 5-4 vote.
Seeing no further business, this